TMI Blog2000 (12) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... classification under heading 85.42 is required to be classified under the heading as claimed by them or under chapter sub-heading 8473.30 as claimed by the department on the ground that the goods appear to be New Generation Micro Processor in the form of Populated Printed Circuit Board and being held by the Dy. Commissioner in the order in original No. TA/XV/96, dated 5-10-1999 as parts of Automatic Data Processing Machine. The appellants had been importing this item time and again and the same was being cleared in terms of classification sought by them. However, the department issued demand notices and the same was taken up for adjudication by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Aircargo Complex. Appellants had taken the stand that they had sought for details from the manufacturers viz. M/s. INTEL Corporation. They also submit that the manufacturers association for information and technology (MAIT) a forum for Information Technology has directly taken up the issue with the concerned officials at the Ministry level for an amicable settlement and they were awaiting clarification from the Ministry. Therefore, they sought adjournment before the Dy. Commissioner of Customs so that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re amounting to Rs. 53,30,938 is demanded under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 . 2. The appellants were aggrieved by this finding of the Dy. Commissioner in holding that the item is Micro Processors classifiable under Heading 8473.30 as a Micro Processor in the form of Populated Printed Circuit Board . The Appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) filed a detailed Affidavit through their experts contesting the findings arrived at by the Dy. Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) has noted about the Affidavit filed and the written submissions filed by the appellants and also their plea that there was a violation of the principles of natural justice in his order. However, he did not agree with their submission and demanded duty holding that it is a new generation Micro Processor in the light of Note 2 (a) to Section XVI of the CTH. He has further held the item to be parts of computer (Automatic Data Processing Machine) falling under Heading 8473.30. The findings arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals), is reproduced herein below : The lower authority has held that the Micro Processors Imported are in the nature of Populated Printed Circuit Board and not Integrated Ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een clearing the goods as such under Heading 8542. He further submits that in any case there was no necessity to obtain Special Import Licence (SIL). Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs Airport that the item is PPCB and the item is to be classified as part of the computer and for the parts under Heading 8473.30 as they have not produced the SIL, therefore, the goods were confiscable and hence the consignment has been confiscated, however granting release on payment of fine and the appellants have been held to be liable to penalty which is contested. He submits that the order of the Commissioner is required to be set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration to the original authority as well as to the Commissioner of Customs (Airport) in Appeal No. 569/2000. He further submits that as regards the classification of the item, the burden of classification of the item under a particular heading has to be discharged by the Department. In this case, the department has not obtained any expert opinion and has also not dealt with their Affidavit. Therefore, he submits that the case may be remanded, so that the Affidavit submitted by the appellant from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n original passed by the Dy. Commissioner, we do not find any material placed by the Revenue for taking a different view in the matter. The learned DR submitted that the item in question was a different type than the one which had been imported earlier. Be that as it may, for changing the opinion, the department ought to have taken opinion from the Customs appraiser or from expert body. Appellants had sought an adjournment to produce expert opinion of M/s ANTEL and had also submitted that the forum for Information and Technology had taken up the matter with the concerned Ministry for issue of clarification in the matter. The Dy. Commissioner has noted this point. The appellants request for adjournment has also been noted by the Dy. Commissioner. However, he has refused to give an adjournment, we are of the view that when the whole position was in a liquid stage, there was no urgency for the Dy. Commissioner to have proceeded with the matter. The appellants could have been one more opportunity to be heard in the matter. Therefore, the order passed by the Dy. Commissioner is in violation of principles of natural justice and is required to be set aside. The Commissioner (Appeals) was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
