Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 916 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - Navigation System - Multifunctional Devices or not - classifiable under CTH 8527 2900 or under Chapter Heading 8526 9190? - penalty u/s 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Extended period of Limitation - HELD THAT:- The Bills of Entry placed on record is seen, where the description of the products was mentioned as ‘Navigation System’. However, on investigation, after verifying the catalogue and the instructions manuals, it was found that the goods were actually described as ‘infotainment system’. The importer is an accredited client where certain privileges are extended to them and the Bill of Entry was cleared under RMS, the lapse was noticed only after SIIB investigation and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was right in invoking suppression/mis-declaration, since the goods were mis-declared by the appellant knowing very well as per the catalogue and the manual that they were multifunctional devices. The appellant’s only defence is that though the catalogue/technical literature is only for the purpose of marketing to show that it is a one stop solution to all the features required in the car cannot absolve them from the responsibility from making a true and correct declaration of the description of the product so as to decide its appropriate classification by the assessing authorities. Also, this itself proves that the appellant was well aware of all the features but still decided to declare them only as a ‘navigation equipment’ thus wilfully mis-declaring the products. Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The appellant’s only defence is that though the catalogue/technical literature is only for the purpose of marketing to show that it is a one stop solution to all the features required in the car cannot absolve them from the responsibility from making a true and correct declaration of the description of the product so as to decide its appropriate classification by the assessing authorities. Also, this itself proves that the appellant was well aware of all the features but still decided to declare them only as a ‘navigation equipment’ thus wilfully mis-declaring the products. Therefore, the Commissioner (A) was justified in invoking the suppression on the ground that the facilities provided to the appellant being an ‘Accredited client’ was misused by mis-declaring the facts. Accordingly, the differential duty with interest is upheld along with mandatory penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Ahmedabad Versus M/s. Urmin Products P. Ltd. And Others [2023 (10) TMI 1112 - SUPREME COURT] observed Thus, in the event of mis-description, wrong description or erroneous description or intentional improper classification of the product manufactured, would not tie the hands of the Competent Authority from piercing the corporate veil to ascertain the true nature of the product and reclassify the same, necessarily after affording an opportunity of hearing which would be in compliance of the doctrine of natural justice. In view of the above, it is found that the Commissioner was justified in invoking the extended period of limitation. The impugned order is upheld - the appeal is rejected.
|