Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 472 - CESTAT KOLKATAClassification of Goods - Goods declared as "Electric Tricycle Spare Parts" under CTH No. 8708.99.00 - Imports goods in the nature of e-rickshaw in CKD condition - Validity of enhancement of value - contemporaneous import - Mandate for following the due process as laid down in the Act and CVR-2007 - Violation of the principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- We observe that the interpretation of the GIR by the adjudicating authority is not proper. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has given a clear finding in the impugned order as to why the imported goods cannot be considered as a fully finished e-rickshaw. As per the reading of descriptions as provided under Import Tariff, Section Notes to Chapter XVII and Explanatory Notes to HSN/CTH 8703 and 8708, the goods imported will have the essential characteristic of e-rickshaw only when the same are assembled to create a T-shaped vehicle mounted on a chassis, whose two rear wheels are independently driven by separate battery-powered electric motors. Also, it is observed that the goods as imported by the Respondent fulfil the description as provide in explanatory notes to CTH 8708 as mentioned at Sl. Nos. (a) to (n). Moreover, the lower authority in its findings has not adduced any evidence that the goods imported by the Respondent are in CKD condition and provides the essential characteristic of e- rickshaw. As per the terminology of CTH 8703 in order to have the essential characteristics of three wheeled vehicle the same has to be powered or there should be propulsion through a battery which provides the power to the motor in order to thrust a vehicle. It is on record that there is no battery available in the goods imported to provide power supply to the e-rickshaw. We agree with the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) that the interpretation of statutes should be in line with the Act i.e., the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and should be purposive in nature and not strictly as a literal interpretation which will not serve the purpose of the Act and the other literal description as provided. Accordingly, we uphold the findings of the ld. appellate authority in the impugned order and hold that the goods imported would not constitute a fully finished e-rickshaw as it did not have all essential components for a fully finished e-rickshaw. Enhancement of value, No evidence was provided to the respondent as to why the value as declared by the respondent was rejected by the lower authority. Accordingly, we hold that the enhancement of value without following the due process as laid down in the Act and CVR, 2007 and in violation of the principles of natural justice is not sustainable. Since the mis-declaration of the description, classification and value as alleged by the Department has not been established, we hold that the goods imported are not liable confiscation. Accordingly, we hold that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. Thus, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal filed by the Department.
|