Redington Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The appeal before the CESTAT Chennai arose from an Order-in-Original whereby the Principal Commissioner of Customs rejected the appellant’s classification of imported JABRA brand Bluetooth wireless headsets, headphones, earphones, earbuds and neckbands under Tariff Item (TI) 85176290 and reclassified them under TI 85183000. Consequentially, customs duty of ₹2,71,95,456, along with applicable interest, was confirmed under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The amount of ₹2 crore already paid by the appellant was appropriated towards the demand, while proposals for confiscation and penalties under Sections 112(a) and 117 were dropped.
The Revenue had initiated investigation on the premise that the imported Bluetooth devices were classifiable as wireless headphones or earphones under TI 85183000 and attracted Basic Customs Duty at 15% under Notification No. 57/2017-Cus. Statements of employees were recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, and technical catalogues of the products were obtained during the investigation.
The appellant contended that the imported products were apparatus for transmission and reception of voice and data and were correctly classifiable under TI 85176290. It relied upon Note 3 to Section XVI of the Harmonised System of Nomenclature (HSN), the General Rules for Interpretation (GRI), CBIC Circular No. 36/2013-Cus. dated 05.09.2013, and the technical characteristics of Bluetooth technology. It was argued that Bluetooth devices function as transceivers, simultaneously receiving and transmitting voice and data over wireless networks, distinguishing them from conventional headphones and earphones. The appellant also relied upon the Tribunal’s decision in M/s. Minda D-Ten Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), New Delhi.
