Order date – 12 September 2022

Facts –

• The Respondent, M/s. Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd., is a distributor of Information Technology products. It imported WAP from various suppliers such as Cisco Systems International BV, Aruba Networks International Ltd., etc. for trading purpose in India and it classified the imported WAP under CTH 8517 62 90 during the period 11.07.2014 to 30.06.2017. 
• According to the appellant, WAP works on Multiple Input/Multiple Output7 technology, but does not support Long Term Evolution standard.
• A show cause notice dated 13.12.2018 was issued to Ingram Micro proposing to deny the exemption from the whole of the customs duty to WAPs imported by it during the relevant period in which it was stated that that exclusion under Serial. No. 13(iv) applies to either of the products, namely MIMO products or LTE products for the reason that from a plain reading of the notification, it is clear that exemption has been denied on two types of products i.e. MIMO products and LTE products.
• Secondly, the show cause notice notes that between the words ‘MIMO’ and ‘LTE’, ‘and’ is placed but it is not followed by a comma. The show cause notice places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shree Durga Distributors vs. State of Karnataka
• All the proposals made in show cause notice, including confiscation, penalties on Ingram Micro and penalties on respondent have been dropped.
• Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal. 

Issue – 

• Whether the exemption is available from the whole of the customs duty by Ingram Micro under Serial No. 13 of the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended by notification dated 11.07.2014?

Order – 

• The Tribunal observed that the expression ‘products’, appearing after ‘LTE’ has to be read with ‘MIMO’ to mean and cover MIMO products. Further, ‘products’ being the common factor for both MIMO technology and LTE standard, the expression ‘and’ has been used in a conjunctive way to cover individually MIMO products and LTE products. 
• Also what needs to be remembered is that MIMO is a technology and cannot be treated as an independent product. If the intention was to exclude even products having only MIMO technology, then the word ‘products’ should have been used after MIMO as well as after LTE. It, therefore, follows that the scope of ‘products’ excluded by entry (iv) would be products which use both MIMO and LTE.
• A Division Bench of the Tribunal in Ingram Micro India in the matter of the appellant also confirmed the classification of identical product (i.e. WAP) under CTH 8517 62 90 and extended the benefit of the subsequent notification dated 30.07.2017. The Department has accepted the Order passed by the Tribunal. 
• Therefore, once the benefit has been granted to Ingram Micro in the subsequent notification for an identical product, the benefit under the notification dated 01.03.2005, as amended on 11.07.2014 should also be extended to Ingram Micro.
• The appeal filed by the department was, therefore, dismissed.