Guest Column

Why this bias?TWO years back, just when the production of corDECT Wireless in Local Loop WLL System, developed by the US, had started, ...

Why this bias?
TWO years back, just when the production of corDECT Wireless in Local Loop WLL System, developed by the US, had started, the Ministry of Finance MoF issued an order exempting imported WLL systems from countervailing duty CVD, even as excise duty and sales tax for indigenously produced WLL systems were retained. In effect, the indigenously developed and produced system would pay more tax than the imported ones. We have been fighting against this injustice for the last two years.

I wonder why CVD on imported WLL systems was removed in the first place two years back. Was it a mere coincidence that this happened just when our field trial was getting completed and the production was starting? These concessions were announced not for all telecom equipment, but specifically for WLL. Simply securing the removal of this injustice became an Herculean task. We wrote numerous letters to the MoF, Department of Telecom DoT and to every conceivable government department. We met YashwantSinha twice, Chidambaram, Jairam Ramesh and most other senior officers in the Finance Ministry. We met the Telecom Commission members and all other DoT officers. Most scientists supported us and met various officials on our behalf. We recently met L. K. Advani, Murli Manohar Joshi, Jagmohan and almost all senior scientists. All of them expressed the view that the order was unjust and they will help us revoke it. It still took two years. Meanwhile, imported WLL systems enjoyed about 20 per cent less taxes vis-a-vis that levied on our system.

The recent order has reimposed CVD and removed concessional customs duty given to imported WLL systems. But no such concessions are anyway enjoyed by other imported telecom equipment, like switches, telephone equipment, transmission equipment, cables etc. Why is WLL to be treated differently? And why this uproar about the decision to treat imported WLL equipment just like other telecom equipment?

It is being said that this order will severely affect the basic telecomoperators BTOs, who are anyway not doing well. We sympathise with the BTOs. But then they are in this difficult situation due to entirely different reasons, which include the high licence bids by these operators. We stand for helping these operators. But what has this to do with WLL? Why should they not pay the same import duties for WLL as they are paying for other imported equipment? In fact, it would help them if they chose to indigenously develop WLL. I cannot understand a few of them demanding that WLL be singled out for concessional duties. The corDECT WLL system developed by us provides simultaneous voice and a 35 kbps Internet connection in dense urban as well as sparse rural areas at a total deployed cost varying between Rs 14,000 and Rs 18,000 per line. This is by far the best-performing and lowest-cost WLL system in the world today. We, of course, do not come with an attractive financing package such as those that accompany the imported systems. But at this low cost, we can make up for the lackof a finance package. However, it would be difficult if we are singled out, and imported WLL equipment is given duty concessions.

We have taken the corDECT solution to many parts of the world. The question that we often face is why is it not being used in India. The corDECT system could bring in major recognition and financial gain for India in this high technology area, if it is given appropriate encouragement. Whatever be the reasons and arguments used to opposed this recent order, the target appears to be the Indian Ramp;D effort and the indigenously developed corDECT WLL.

The author is a Professor at IIT Chennai