Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + Commission Customs - 2018 (1) TMI Commission This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (1) TMI 1460 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, CHENNAIBenefit of Sl. No. 106 of N/N. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012 - Mis-declaration and mis-classification of imported goods - import of “Protein Meal Animal Feed Supplement” in the guise of “Organic Manure Composite Fertilizer” - evasion of customs duty - allegation based on evidences and statement recorded from various entities involved - the applicant and the co-applicant have paid the entire differential customs duty demanded during the course of investigation, even before the issue of SCN; however, they are before the Bench with a prayer to extent the benefit of Customs Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Customs, dated 17-3-2012 (Sl. No. 106) which is applicable to ‘Feed additives or premixes’ falling under CTH 2309 90 10 attracting basic Customs duty of 20%. Held that:- The evidence gathered during the course of investigation have clearly proved that the invoice, packing list etc., have been fabricated with false description of the goods and the goods imported have been sold to poultry agencies directly as animal feed. The poultry agencies have not carried out any further manufacturing activity with the goods purchased and sold them directly in the market as a ‘animal feed supplement’. Further, when the goods imported vide B/E No. 5420683, dated 27-5-2016 and B/E No. 5490477, dated 2-6-2016 were referred to Animal Quarantine and Certification Service, Govt, of India, reported that the goods referred to them contained ‘Meat and Bone meal’ which comes under the category of ‘Livestock products’ and is categorized as high risk commodity. As per N/N. 2666(E), dated 16-10-2014, the import of the said product can be done only after obtaining Sanitary Import Permit (SIP) in advance from the Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers’ Welfare, New Delhi. Secondly Tuticorin port is not authorized for import of livestock products. It clearly proves that the goods imported cannot be termed as ‘Feed additives or premixes’ and in fact is ‘animal feed’ and therefore, the Bench is of the considered view that the benefit of the exemption notification cannot be extended to the goods in question and accordingly, rejects the claim of the applicant for extending the benefit. Finalization of provisional assessments - Held that:- The Bench orders finalization of all the 4 Bills of Entry treating the goods as ‘Protein Meal animal Feed Supplement’ and not ‘Organic Manure-Composite Fertilizer’, as claimed by the applicant and hold that the goods are classifiable under CTH 2309 90 10 which the applicant admitted while filing this application. Penalty - Held that:- The act of the main-applicants and co-applicants attract penalty under the provisions invoked in the SCN. However keeping in view the full and true disclosure of additional duty liability, co-operation extended during the investigation and the proceedings before the Settlement Commission, the Bench considers this as a fit case for extending partial immunity from penalty to the main-applicants and co-applicants. Prosecution - Held that:- The Bench is inclined to consider grant of immunity from prosecution to the main-applicants and co-applicants.
|