Samsung India Electronics (P) Ltd

Commissioner.of Customs

Customs, Excise, & Service Tax Tribunal

- Integrated circuit chips used in the manufacture of mobile phones and tablets
- data compression and decompression functions but lack standalone functionality.

- Samsung India imported IC-Codecs and classified them as electronic integrated circuits under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8542, thereby claiming exemption from basic customs duty and paying IGST.
- Audit: Customs Department disagreed. IC-Codecs were communication apparatus capable of data transmission/reception and ought to be classified under a different tariff heading (CTI 8517), attracting higher duties

- 05 March 2018 to 07 March 2019: Period during which Samsung imported the IC-Codecs under dispute.
- 25 August 2020: Order by Principal Commissioner rejecting Samsung’s classification of IC-Codecs; re-classified goods as communication apparatus and raised demand.
- 22 July 2024: CESTAT Delhi pronounced the judgment allowing Samsung’s appeal and quashing the impugned order

- Allowed the appeal in favor of Samsung India.
- Imported IC-Codecs are “electronic integrated circuits” not communication apparatus capable of standalone transmission or reception.

- Classification must be based on the essential character and capability of the goods at the time of import, not on potential usage after assembly in the final product.
-Noted the absence of any technical evidence or material to demonstrate that the goods had transmission/reception capability at the time of import
- Standalone functional capability is critical for tariff classification. Mere integration into devices that perform communication does not elevate an IC chip into a communication apparatus.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38380597/

M/S Puneet Industrial Controls

M/S Classic Electronics & Anr.

Electronic relay products with unique electric and electronic circuits printed on Printed Circuit Boards

Alleged that defendants manufactured and sold electronic relay products that copied the plaintiffs’ unique circuit designs and layouts resulting in infringement.
Contended by Defendants that since the SICLD Act, 2001, is a later and special statute vis-à-vis the Copyright statute, the relief claimed under the Copyright Act is barred by law.

- Applicability of the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 and whether the products constituted layout designs under that Act cannot be decided without evidence and trial.
- The Court refused to reject the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC since the threshold for rejection is strict. The plaint must on its face disclose no cause of action or be barred by law without doubt or dispute.

While changes in law must be taken into account, the effect of such changes must be clear on the face of the plaint to warrant rejection.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/13932396/

Saurabh Bindal filed a PIL challenging Section 18(4) of the SICLD Act as being unconstitutional.
Section 18(4) violated Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Rights of registered proprietors of semiconductor layout designs (notably ISRO and BHEL) could be violated

- Dismissed the writ petition.
- No reason to entertain the PIL at the petitioner’s behest, primarily because his grievance was based on protecting the interests of others (ISRO and BHEL) who are competent to approach the court themselves

PIL will not be entertained when the petitioner lacks a genuine personal interest and merely seeks to protect interests of other entities who are fully capable of litigating themselves

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124469169/

Ministry of Communications

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi

Y S Tanwar, an ex-Scientist ‘D’ from the Department of Electronics and Information Technology, challenged the Personnel and Pay decisions seeking a declaration that he was posted to the post of Registrar, SICLDR on a full-time basis,

- 19 March 2012: Applicant was assigned duties of Registrar, SICLDR.
- 27 May 2013: Post of Registrar, SICLDR officially created
- 17 June 2014: End of period during which applicant discharged duties
- 23 April & 14 May 2015: Government orders denying pay fixation/additional remuneration.

- Dismissed the Original Application
- Assigned the duties of Registrar, SICLDR, but the post did not exist until 27 May 2013, so until then he could not be treated as holding an ex-cadre statutory post.

Absence of clear statutory entitlement means administrative discretion cannot be transmuted into a legal right.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/166413240/