2017 (11) TMI 1791 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration and mis-classification of imported goods - Non-texturised Polyester Lining Fabric - test reports found that the goods were 100% polyester woven fabrics and having 40% textured yarn and 59% non-textured yarn - the classification of the goods was proposed by the Department under sub-heading 5407 69 00 whereas the importer clarified that the goods are rightly classifiable under sub-heading 5407 61 90 - Held that - The license which has been submitted by the importer covered the broad category of the goods under heading 5407. Inasmuch as the goods which are imported and tested have been found to be classified under heading 5407 the license will cover the same - the impugned order is set aside and the goods may be cleared duty free under the import license - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under specific sub-heading, interpretation of duty free import authorization license, misdeclaration charges, confiscation of goods, differential duty, penalty.

Classification of Imported Goods: The appellant imported goods declared as "Non-texturised Polyester Lining Fabric," but the Customs Department classified them under sub-heading 5407 69 00, while the importer argued for classification under sub-heading 5407 61 90. A test confirmed the goods as 100% polyester woven fabrics with 40% textured yarn and 59% non-textured yarn. The dispute centered on the correct sub-heading for classification.

Interpretation of Duty Free Import Authorization License: The importer held a Duty Free Import Authorization (DFIA) license covering goods under sub-heading 5407 00 00. The Customs Department contended that the license did not apply to the imported goods, leading to denial of duty free clearance, confiscation of goods on misdeclaration charges, and imposition of differential duty and penalty.

Judgment: The Tribunal considered the license's scope, determining that since the goods were classified under heading 5407, consistent with the broad category in the license, duty free clearance was warranted. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing duty free clearance under the import license. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the Miscellaneous Application was disposed of accordingly.