Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 460 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - Melamine ware viz Kitchenware and Tableware - whether classified under CTH 39249090 or classifiable under CTH 39241090? - benefit of N/N. 46/2011-Cus - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- From the scheme of the tariff entries it is quite evident that Tableware and Kitchenware, have been specifically mentioned and classified under heading 392410. While other household articles and hygienic or toilet articles, of plastics, have been grouped together and put under heading 392490, under description of others. It is general principle of classification that specific entry should be preferred over the general entry. From the description of the goods given on the Bill of Entry and the invoices relating to the import describing the goods as “Pickle Set”, “Butter Dish”, “Short Tumbler”, “Spoon”, “Casserole Bowl” etc., we are convinced that the goods were appropriately classifiable under heading 392410 and not under heading 392490 as claimed by the appellant From the plain reading of the notification it is evident that the said exemption is available only in respect of the goods classifiable under tariff heading 392490 and not under heading 392410. Hence the order of Commissioner denying the benefit of exemption under this notification cannot be faulted with. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- By giving the correct description on the documents relating to import clearance appellants have discharge the burden of making correct declaration on the Bill of Entry. Hence any error in classification or the exemption claimed on Bill of Entry cannot be misdeclaration with the intention to evade payment of duty for the purpose of invoking extended period of limitation. Hence demand made by invoking extended period of limitation needs to be set aside. Since we have upheld that the benefit of exemption under Notification No 46/2011-Cus was not admissible to the appellant and demand could not have been made by invoking the extended period of limitation as provided for by Section 28(4), the demand which falls within the normal period of limitation needs to be upheld - Only after determining the duty demandable and recoverable within the normal period of limitation, demand of interest under Section 28AA can be made or quantified. While setting aside the demand of interest made under Section 28AA, we make it clear that the interest will be payable in terms of Section 28AA on the redetermined demand. The fact that the goods correspond to declaration in respect of the description and value is sufficient to take the imported goods away from the application of these two clauses. Hence the order holding goods liable for confiscation and imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) cannot be sustained - Since we have held that appellant had not made any misdeclaration with intent to evade payment of duty, we are setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. Matter remanded back to Commissioner for redetermination and re-quantification of the demand which can be made by denying the exemption under Notification No 46/201-Cus to the appellants within the normal period as provided by Section 28(1) - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|