Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 647 - AT - CustomsMisdeclaration of imported goods - import of ‘glass microspheres’ in the guise of ‘glass beads’ - suppression or wilful mis-representation - extended period of limitation - Held that:- The ‘glass and glassware’ includes glass beads, glass microspheres etc. and these have been grouped as ‘glass beads’, ‘glass microspheres’ and ‘others’ indicating these to distinct products - It is clear from the structure of the relevant chapter in the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 that the imported goods must squarely fall under heading no. 70182000. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- It is apparent that the same documents, viz. the certificate of origin and the certificate of analysis, based on which the impugned order has reclassified the goods, were available with the assessing officer at the time of import. The distinct and different classification adopted in Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva is also a clear pointer to the confusion in classification that may absolve the importers of deliberate intent to misdeclare. It is also apparent that the consequence of differential levy, being restricted to additional duties of customs, that no particular gain would have accrued to the appellant by misdeclaring the goods - the extended period under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be invoked for demand of duty. Penalties - Held that:- As the demand is restricted to normal period of limitation, and in view of the specific finding of lack of deliberate misclassification, there is no scope for invoking penalties under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 or under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Appeal allowed in part.
|