Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (1) TMI 906

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y merit in the respondents contention on classification of imported goods in their cross objection. We also find that the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority have discussed the classification issue at length and rightly held that the goods are “Animal Feed Supplement” and classifiable under Chapter 23 of CTA. Therefore, the cross objection on their issue is liable to be rejected. Nowhere in the invoice the goods were described as “Medicaments” but they have added and inserted the words “medicaments” while describing the description of the goods in the B/E and claimed classification under Chapter 30 to evade payment of appropriate duty of customs. It is evident that respondents claimed classification of goods as “medicament .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d and bank guarantee for 20% of the value of the goods. The intelligence also found that respondents have cleared 10 consignments of identical goods in the past and declared as Medicaments . Consequently, a SCN was issued for reclassification of the goods and also for confiscation of the goods under section 111 (m) and also proposing for penalty. Since the respondents did not appear before the adjudicating authority, the adjudicating authority in his OIO dt. 31.3.2012 rejected the classification of the goods claimed by the respondents under 30042041 and ordered for reclassification under 23099090 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as Animal Feed Supplement and also ordered for finalization of provisional assessment in respect of all the Bills .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ving upheld re-classification and misdeclaration but setting aside the confiscation, fine and penalty is not justified. Respondents have intentionally misdeclared the goods as Medicaments under Chapter 30 and availed exemption notification 3/2005 for CVD and the misclassification is with intention to evade customs duty. Therefore, he submits, the adjudicating authority has rightly confiscated the goods and imposed RF penalty. He submits that invoice did not mention the goods as medicaments whereas the respondents have deliberately described the goods as medicaments . He pleaded for restoring the confiscation, fine and penalty ordered by the adjudicating authority. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondent reiterated the cross ob .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cation of goods in their cross objection, we find that respondents themselves in their appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) have accepted the reclassification of the goods ordered with OIO and also paid the differential duty which was clearly recorded at para-5 6 of the OIA. The LAA had upheld the order on classification of imported goods as Animal Feed Supplement under Chapter heading 23099090. On perusal of OIO, we find that in spite of several opportunities were given to the respondent to appear for personal hearing, the respondent to appear for hearing to defend their case and the having accepted the classification before Commissioner (Appeals) we do not find any merit in the respondents contention on classification of imported good .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ropping confiscation fine and penalty is not justified and not backed with evidence and beyond the scope of law. Accordingly, We hold that the misdeclaration is clearly established with intent to evade customs duty, therefore, the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111 (m) of Customs Act and the adjudicating authority has rightly ordered for confiscation of goods under Section 111 (m) of Customs Act. The impugned Order-in-Appeal is liable to be set aside to that extent and adjudicating authority s order of confiscation is liable to be upheld. 7. As regards the L.A.A setting aside the redemption fine and penalty having upheld the confiscation of goods, the redemption fine and penalty is imposable. However, we find that adjudi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates