TMI Blog2008 (12) TMI 552X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eces of sewing machines of different models of a total value of Rs. 1,45,79,173/-. The goods were sought clearance against an EPCG licence claiming the benefit of Customs Notification No. 21/2002. The assessment of CVD was claimed at Nil rate in terms of Central Excise Notification No. 6/2006. The goods were assessed under the second check system and the importer paid duty by paying cash of Rs. 7,66,298/- and the balance Rs. 6,19,899/- by debit in the EPCG licence. On examination of the goods at the docks, it transpired that the goods imported were sewing machines with inbuilt motor contrary to the declaration. The Nil rate of additional duty of customs was not admissible to the goods imported namely sewing machines with inbuilt motor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The appellants had followed the formalities in connection with clearance of the goods strictly in accordance with the Public Notice No. 242/98 dt. 28-12-98 issued in this regard. It is submitted that as per the Public Notice, the goods would be examined by the Shed Appraiser with reference among others to commercial invoice and packing list. There was no possibility of the importer obtaining any undue benefit by declaring an incorrect description of the imported goods. Relying on a number of case law, it is submitted that classification of imported goods was a departmental function and an importer could not be accused of having misclassified goods imported by him. The ratio of this case law also indicated that the order of confiscation an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EDLE FEED TOP DRIVEN ROLLER AUTOMATIC BACKTACK MDL 888-160122 . The description relevant and adequate for assessment was sewing machines with inbuilt motor . With the description entered in the Bill of Entry, it was impossible in the EDI system to detect whether the assessment of the goods at Nil rate of CVD claimed in terms of Notification No. 6/06-C.E. was correct. Therefore, various case law claimed in support of the plea that classification was a departmental function and an importer could not be penalized for claiming an incorrect classification of the imported goods does not appear applicable in the facts of the case. In the subject case claiming Nil rate of assessment of CVD tantamounts to consciously misdeclaring the imported g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
