Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (7) TMI 325 - CESTAT NEW DELHIClassification of imported goods - import of natural gum / Gum Arabic - prohibited goods or not - benefit of Notification No. 96/2008 – Customs dated 13 August 2008 - exemption from Counter Veiling Duty (CVD) - applicability of CBEC Circular dated 28 June 2007 - requirements for Gum Arabic as per standard specification of IS 6795-2007 met or not - HELD THAT:- It is found that the Department did not reject the claim of the appellant for classifying the subject consignment under the CTH 13012000 straight away at the time of filing of the bills of entry, though there is no document which may indicate that import consignments are Gum Arabic. The goods were assessed provisionally as per the importers claim and sent for chemical examination for determining the true nature of the import goods. Benefit of N/N. 96/2008 – Customs dated 13 August 2008 - HELD THAT:- The import documents and the chemical examination report of the consignments establish that consignments were ‘other Natural Gum’. As the exemption Notification No. 96/2008 – Customs dated 13 August 2008 exempts only Gum Arabic, classifiable under CTH 13012000 from the levy of the customs duty and it is established that the consignments are not Gum Arabic but other Natural Gum, it has to be held that the imported consignment were classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 13019019 and are not entitled for exemption notification benefit under Notification No. 96/2008 – Customs dated 13 August 2008. Thus, there are no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and, accordingly, we uphold the findings made in this regard. Incorrect details and declarations regarding the description and classification under CTH 13012000 or not - HELD THAT:- The custom house agent firm namely M/s Bharti Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Anil Kumar Tiwari only described the goods in the bills of entry as provided in the bills of landing and the invoices. It is also a matter of record that in the show cause notice no evidence has been brought forward to indicate that the clearing agent and its Director had conscientiously done anything to evade the customs duty - No malafide can be attached to such a mistake, when the goods were provisionally assessed and samples were drawn from the import consignments to determine the true nature and identity of the import consignments. Thus, there is no substance that the clearing agent did any omission and commission consciously which led to evasion of customs duty. Imposition of penalty on the CHA firm and its Director under Section 112 (b) of CA - HELD THAT:- None of the requirements provided under Section 112 (b) have been established against the clearing agent. Since the importer - appellant himself has sought benefit of the exemption notification by classifying the goods under chapter sub-heading CTH 13012000, which was allowed by provisionally assessing the Bills of entry subject to chemical test by the Department itself, the Department is not justified in alleging any malafide on the part of the CHA firm and its Director. Thus, there is no ground to levy any penalty on the appellant CHA firm – M/s Bharti Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. and its Director – Anil Kumar Tiwari - Penalty set aside. There is no merit in the appeal filed by M/s B.L. Goyal and it deserves to be dismissed - the Appeals filed by M/s Bharti Freight Forwarders Pvt. Ltd. and its Director Anil Kumar Tiwari, deserve to be allowed - Application disposed off.
|