Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 285 - CESTAT MUMBAIClassification of the imported goods - ‘Activity trackers’ - ‘rate of duty’ for levy intended by section 12 - enhancement of duty liability - recovery of differential duty - Classification of a product under specific heading or residuary heading - HELD THAT:- In the impugned order, appears to have been influenced by reference to ‘wrist bearable devices’ (otherwise known as smart watches) in several clarifications of Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC) that enunciated these as corresponding to 8517 6290 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 to suffice for any article capable of being so worn to be so classified. The enormity of chasm of logic between the design of the ‘activity tracker’ and ‘smart watch’, let alone unquestioned acceptance that ‘smart watch’ is indeed so classifiable, which has not been touched upon in the impugned order demonstrates inadequacy of finding. It is also settled law that a notification giving effect to rate of duty, in whichever manner designed, or prescribing a special procedure cannot substitute for the mandate of the charging section. Here, the premise that the goods are ‘composite’ should have been followed by selecting the predominating function from among the identified constituents and the description corresponding to each that, along with relevant notes in the chapter and section, would be evaluated for defining the characteristic of the whole taken together without question. That glaring lack precludes us from evaluation of the revised classification as being legal and proper. It would appear that the rules of engagement for revision in classification as required by the General Rules of Interpretation of the Import Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and the law as determined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in HPL Chemicals Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, [2006 (4) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] have been observed in their breach. Therefore, it is necessary that the entire dispute should be revisited. To enable that to be done, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the original authority for a fresh decision on the proposed classification after subjecting it to validation in accordance with law as statutorily enacted and judicially determined.
|