2017 (8) TMI 877 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - blenders of three different models - classified under CTH 8438 80 90 as machinery for the industrial preparation of food or drink or under CTH 8509 as electric mechanical domestic appliances with self contained electric motor? - Held that - Commissioner (A) after considering the product specification from the brochure and website of the imported goods has recorded that these goods comprise of electric motor and are meant for commercial and industrial clients and not for domestic segment. Further he has recorded that the suppliers of Vitamix brand of blenders restrict themselves to the supply of blenders only for Commercial or industrial purpose in India - goods rightly classified under CTH 8438. Confiscation - Held that - the dispute is with reference to correct classification of the goods. In view of the two competing classifications under customs tariff the difference in opinion cannot be considered as mis declaration. Consequently there is no justification for confiscation of the imported goods which is set aside. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under CTH 8438 or CTH 8509, Confiscation of goods under section 111 (m) of the Customs Act 1962

In this case, the appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.957/2015, contesting the classification of certain imported goods. The appellant declared the goods as 'blenders' under CTH 8438 80 90 for industrial food preparation, while the Revenue argued for classification under CTH 8509 as domestic appliances. The original adjudicating authority classified the goods under CTH 8509 and confiscated them under section 111 (m) of the Customs Act 1962. However, the Commissioner (A) set aside the order, leading to the Revenue's appeal. The dispute centered on whether the blenders were for domestic or industrial use. The Commissioner (A) found that the blenders were intended for commercial and industrial clients based on product specifications and supplier restrictions, supporting the classification under CTH 8438. The Tribunal upheld this finding, stating that Revenue failed to provide sufficient justification for reclassification under CTH 8509. The Tribunal emphasized that the differing opinions on classification did not amount to misdeclaration, leading to the dismissal of the appeal and the setting aside of the confiscation of goods. The impugned order was sustained, and the appeal by Revenue was rejected.