Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (9) TMI 614 - AT - CustomsClassification of goods - import of optical fibre cables (OFC) Tariff entry CTH9001 and CTH8544 Confiscation Vide impugned order, adjudicating authority classified optical fibre cables imported by appellant under CTH 9001 and denied benefit of notification No. 24/2005-Cus, confirmed differential duty demand and confiscated goods Whether goods were to be classified under CTH 8544 or under CTH 9001 of Customs Tariff Whether confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty was justified Held that:- as observed in case of ALCATEL INDIA LTD [2006 (2) TMI 196 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS] Optical fibre cables fall under both Headings 85.44 and 90.01, if optical fibre cable was made up of individually sheathed fibre, it fall under Heading 85.44 and all other optical fibre cables fall under Heading 90.01 In current case, Optical fibre cables were not made up of individually sheathed fibres which was basic criterion to be fulfilled by any optical fibre cable to merit classification under tariff heading 8544 Since tariff heading 9001 specifically covers optical fibre cables other than those of heading 8544, products in question would accordingly fall squarely under heading 9001 Thus, correct classification of OFCs imported by appellant was under CTH 9001 Customs Tariff Therefore impugned order in respect of classification of goods, upheld. No evidence to prove that appellant misdeclared description of goods under import with intent to evade payment of duty Goods were imported by appellant over long period of time and they have been classifying same under CTH 8544 all along Goods were also examined or ought to have been examined by Customs at time of importation Therefore, laying claim to some exemption, was matter of belief of assessee and does not amount to misdeclaration warranting confiscation Also show cause notice for demand of differential duty was hit by time-bar Thus, entire differential duty demand with interest, confiscation of goods, imposition of fine and penalties were not sustainable and hereby set aside Decided in favour of Assesse.
|