Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Commscope Solution (India) Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports) (CESTAT Chennai)
Appeal Number : Customs Appeal No. 41596 of 2013
Date of Judgement/Order : 02/01/2024
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Commscope Solution (India) Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports) (CESTAT Chennai)

Introduction: The case of Commscope Solution (India) Private Limited versus the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) before CESTAT Chennai revolves around the minimum operating voltage of patch cords and its implication on customs duty exemption. The appellant imported goods declared as ‘Patch Cord’ and sought benefits under a specific notification, triggering a dispute with the customs department.

Detailed Analysis

Commscope Solution (India) Pvt. Ltd. filed Bills of Entry for the clearance of goods, including patch cords supplied by M/s. Commscope Solutions (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd. The appellant claimed benefits under Notification No. 25/2005-CUS, which required electric conductors for telecommunications to have a voltage exceeding 80 V but not exceeding 1000 V.

The customs department contested the eligibility, citing that the imported goods operated at 72 volts, below the specified threshold. Despite arguments and appeals, the original authority denied the benefit, leading to the appellant’s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequently to CESTAT Chennai.

During the proceedings, the appellant’s counsel argued that the denial was based on an erroneous interpretation of the notification. They pointed out that the product complied with ISO/IEC International Standard 11801-1, specifying the operating voltage.

The product’s specifications indicated its capability to operate at 300 volts, surpassing the minimum requirement of 80 volts as per the notification. Despite the mention of DC voltage in the product specification, it was argued that when converted to AC, the minimum operating voltage exceeded 80 volts.

CESTAT Chennai examined the facts and clarified that the notification did not specify AC or DC voltage. Considering the product’s specifications and the conversion from DC to AC, the minimum operating voltage was deemed to be above 80 volts AC, making it eligible for the notification’s benefits.

Conclusion: CESTAT Chennai overturned the impugned order, allowing the appeal and granting consequential reliefs. This ruling highlights the importance of interpreting statutory notifications diligently, considering technical specifications, and understanding the practical implications of voltage standards in determining customs duty exemptions.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER

Brief facts are that the appellant filed Bills of Entry through their CHA for the clearance of goods declared as ‘Patch Cord’ (copper cable) among other things. The goods were supplied by M/s. Commscope Solutions (Singapore) Pvt. Ltd., Singapore. The appellants claimed the benefit of Notification No. 25/2005-CUS dated 01.03.2005 at Sl.No.29 for the item   Patch   Cord   imported   by   them.   The   said Notification at Sl.No.29 reads as under:-

S. No.

Heading, Sub – heading or Tariff item Description of goods
29. 8544 42 Electric conductors, for a voltage exceeding 80 V, but not exceeding 1000 V, fitted with connectors, of a kind used for telecommunications

CESTAT allows Customs Duty Exemption on patch cords of above 80 volt

2. The department was of the view that the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the Notification as the operating voltage should be more than 80 volts and the imported good operate only at 72 volts. The original authority denied the benefit and confirmed the differential duty along with interest. Against this, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the same Hence this appeal.

3. On behalf the appellant the Ld. Counsel Sri Karthik Sundaram appeared and argued the matter. It is submitted that the benefit of Notification has been denied to the appellant on an erroneous interpretation of the Notification. The Ld. Counsel has pointed out that as per the product literature, it goods complied with ISO with IEC International Standard of 11801-1. The operating voltage of such item is as under:-

ISO/IEC 11801-1 

6.4.3.5 Operating voltage

The minimum operating voltage of a channel shall meet the requirements in Table 44. This shall be achieved by an appropriate design.

Table 44- Operating voltage for a channel

Minimum operating voltage V DC
Class

BCT-C

72.0

4. The above would show that the minimum operating voltage is 72. When 72 volts is converted in AC the same is sufficient compliance of the operating voltage as specified in the The Ld. Counsel adverted to the product specification of the impugned product which is as under:-

Systimax Solutions

860017029 |1074E DG 4/24 RVAR

GigaSPEED@XL 1074E Category 6 U/UTP Cable, non-plenum, dark gray jacket, 4 pair count, variable length, reel.

Electrical Specifications

ANSI/TIA Category

6
Dc Resistance Unbalance, maximum 5%
Dc Resistance, maximum 9.38 ohms/100m
Mutual Capacitance 5.6 Nf/100 m @ 1kHz
Nominal Velocity of Propagation (NVP) 69%
Operating Frequency, maximum 300MHz
Transmission Standards ANSI/TIA-568-C.2 | CENELEC EN 50288-6-1 | ISO/IEC 11801 Class E
Safety Voltage Rating 300V That it is capable of operating at 300V
Dielectric Strength, minimum 1500 Vac | 2500 Vdc

5. It is pointed by the Ld. Counsel that the goods imported by the appellant would function up to the voltage of 300V. It is held by the Commissioner (Appeals) in paragraph 4 that the appellants have wrongly claimed the benefit of the Notification by submitting that the goods would operate in more than 80 volts. The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Notification mentions only the voltage and does not mention whether AC or DC current. The product specifications mention voltage in DC current and when converted into AC, the same would fulfil the condition of the Notification. For converting the voltage mention in DC into AC current, the figure has to be multiplied by 1.4. When 72 volts (DC) is multiplied by 4, the result would be 101 volts of AC current. Thus, the product specifications fulfil the condition of operating above 80 volts AC currents.

6. The Counsel prayed that the appeal may be allowed.

7. The issue to be decided falls within a very narrow In Paragraph 4 of the impugned order the Commissioner (Appeals) has observed that the imported product would operate only at 72 volts and that to the eligible for the benefit of the Notification, the product has to be operational in between 80V and 1000v. It requires to be mentioned that the Notification does not mention AC or DC voltage. However, the imported product specification mentions DC voltage. The ISO specification of 11801-1 extracted above, shows that the minimum operating voltage of such product is 72 volts. This is Direct Current and when converted into alternate current (AC) it would be 101. Thus, the minimum operating voltage of the product is definitely above 80 volt AC. So also, the maximum operating voltage is 300. The product thus falls within the operating voltage mentioned at Sl.No.29 of the Notification. We therefore are convinced that the goods are eligible for the benefit of the Notification.

8. The impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs, if any, as per law.

(Order dictated and pronounced in the open court)

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930