AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjiv Khanna, J.—This appeal by the Revenue under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 (Act, for short) impugns order dated 17th April, 2014 passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) on appeal filed by M/s. Navshiv Retail Private Limited. By allowing the said appeal, the Tribunal has quashed and set aside redemption fine and penalty. The original adjudicating authority had directed re-export of the said goods on redemption fine to Rs. 3 lacs and penalty of Rs. 1 lac, which was reduced to Rs. 1.45 lacs and Rs. 80,000/- in the first appeal.
The submission raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the mobile phones, which were imported and for which customs clearance was sought, did not have requisite International Mobile Equipment Identification (IMEI, for short) number. The IMEI number of the phones had been allocated to handsets, which were manufactured by Nokia and Samsung. The phones imported were bearing the brand name Mobiado.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that import of the said mobile phones was illegal and a threat to national security. The Tribunal, therefore, has erred in deleting redemption fine and penalty. It is submitted that each phone is allotted a unique IMEI number and import of mobile handsets without IMEI number is prohibited.
We have considered the said contentions, but do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. The finding of the Tribunal is that the brand name Mobiado belongs to M/s. Bonae Innovation Corporation, a company incorporated in Canada. The said company is engaged in the business of distribution and retail of mobile handsets by the name of Mobiado. It is a luxury brand available all over the world. M/s. Bonae Innovation Corporation purchases mobile handsets manufactured by original equipment manufacturers and embellishes them by their cutting edge engineering technology. There is no change in the mobile handsets, but the embellishment is done by replacing the casing. There are several other mobile handset distributors and retailers like them, for example, Vertu, Tag Heur and Porsche. The said companies embellish the mobile handsets manufactured by others like Nokia and Samsung.
Non-allocation and inscription of the IMEI number can be a security hazard as the mobile phone instrument cannot be identified and cross checked. Telephone service providers can identify the sim card and also the mobile instrument with the IMEI code. Thus, when required the mobile phone instrument can be traced. SIM cards used in the mobile phone can be ascertained. The original equipment manufacturer of the mobile phone is not a matter of security concern, but IMEI number code identification is a necessity and mandatory.
The admitted position was that the mobile handsets did have IMEI numbers. Once the IMEI number was mentioned on the mobile handset and was duly declared, then there is no possibility or chance of misuse and accordingly no threat to national security. IMEI number once embedded in the mobile phone becomes the identification code for the said mobile handset. There was no tampering with the said IMEI number. It has not been explained, how and in what circumstances that there was a security threat in the present case. The requirement that there should be an IMEI code identification was satisfied.
M/s. Bonae Innovation Corporation had only done re-designing and embellishing the casing of the existing handset by using their cutting edge engineering technology. The aforesaid findings of fact are not disputed and under challenge. The fact that the phones did have IMEI number is not disputed. In view of the aforesaid position, we do not find any merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed.