2019 (1) TMI 1733 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Visi coolers (Refrigerators) falling under Chapter Heading 84.18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act 1985 - whether classified under 7008 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 or under CTH No. 7005? - liability for payment of anti-dumping duty in terms of Notification No.04/2009 dated 06.01.2009. HELD THAT - The supplier M/s. Jinan Wenshing Glass Co. Ltd. had furnished a detail technical right-up on the characteristics of insulated glass and also confirmed that the door glass supplied by them to the appellant herein falls under the category of insulated glass panels which were manufactured as per the size and specification furnished by the appellant - Further the technical specification furnished by the overseas supplier is also confirming to the HSN notes to justify classification of the imported goods under CTH 7008. Since goods of Chapter 7008 is not finding place in the notification dated 06.01.2009 for the purpose of levy of anti-dumping duty in our considered opinion such duty levied through adjudication process on the appellant cannot be sustained. The goods cannot be liable for confiscation and no penalty can be imposed on the appellant since there is no mis-declaration of goods. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, liability for anti-dumping duty, confiscation of goods, penalty under Customs Act.

Classification of Goods:
The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Visi coolers, imported specific glass panels from China. The department contended the goods should be classified under CTH No. 7005, attracting anti-dumping duty. The appellant claimed classification under 7008. The Tribunal noted technical literature from the supplier confirming the glass panels as insulated, suitable for commercial refrigerators. The goods were found to align with HSN notes for classification under CTH 7008. As Chapter 7008 was not covered for anti-dumping duty, the duty imposed on the appellant was deemed unsustainable. Consequently, confiscation and penalty were deemed unwarranted due to no mis-declaration.

Liability for Anti-Dumping Duty:
The department argued for anti-dumping duty based on the import of float glass, proposing classification under CTH No. 7005. However, the Tribunal, considering the technical details provided by the supplier and the specific use of the glass panels in refrigerators, concluded that the goods fell under CTH 7008. As Chapter 7008 was not listed for anti-dumping duty in the relevant notification, the duty imposed on the appellant was held unjustified.

Confiscation of Goods and Penalty:
The impugned order had also confiscated the imported goods and imposed a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, since the goods were correctly classified under CTH 7008, the confiscation and penalty were deemed inappropriate as there was no mis-declaration. The Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalties and confiscation.

This judgment highlights the importance of accurate classification of goods under the Customs Tariff Act, the implications of anti-dumping duty based on classification, and the necessity for proper justification in imposing penalties and confiscation under the Customs Act. The technical specifications and intended use of imported goods play a crucial role in determining their classification and subsequent duties or penalties, as evidenced in this case.