Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (6) TMI 1003 - AT - CustomsRevocation of Customs Broker (CB) licence - Mis-declaration of goods - Import of chemicals/ Laboratory reagents - Whether to be classified as Pharmaceutical Reference Stands under CTH 38220090 and claim benefit of exemption Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dt. 01/03/2002 and exemption Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dt. 17/03/2012 - Appellant produced a set of Bills of Entry but department contended non-availability of documents in the dockets - Held that:- description of the goods had the chemical names and it appears that CRM reference is taken out from HSN code. There is no specific term PRS used in the tariff heading. Whether a chemical is PRS has to be based on documentary evidence. Further some PRS materials are classifiable under CTH 28 also. While we have a certificate from the supplier that the chemicals supplied are PRS only, observations of the learned Commissioner in support of his conclusion that there is a mis-declaration because of difference in the description in the invoice and the Bill of Entry are not supported by any technical opinion. If the invoice does not have the description CRM but merely gives the chemical names and the HSN code number, then the case for the Department becomes weak. This is because the PRS can fall under 2852 or 3822 as mentioned in the notification itself. Moreover it was also submitted that even prior to addition of CRM in CTH 3822, the appellants were importing PRS and it is the submission on behalf of the appellants that PRS can fall under CTH 3822 or 2852 as the case may be. When so many conclusions are possible and when we find that goods have been examined, documents have been examined, even though there is no mention, if the examiner of the packages has called for the other documents, he would have definitely seen the invoice also. Moreover the Commissioner himself agrees that commercial invoices were available in the dockets. If the appellant's intention was to deliberately evade duty and ensure that mis-declaration does not get detected, the commercial invoices would not have been placed in the dockets (assuming that the dockets were not seen by the Customs officers but prepared and placed in the Customs Office by the Customs Broker). Because there is a difference of description between commercial invoice and the Bill of Entry, the whole case has been made out. Therefore, the Customs Broker has not aided or abetted the importer in evasion of duty by mis-declaring the description. Also the penalty is reduced and revokation of licence of Custom Broker is set aside. - Appeal disposed of
|