Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri Pramod Kumar Versus C.C., New Delhi

2017 (12) TMI 460 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Classification of goods - unbranded Micro SD Cards - classified under CTH 85235220 or CTH 85235100? - Held that: - the CBEC vide Circular dated 20.07.2016 has also clarified that the benefit of the said notification is extendable to Micro/Mini SD cards classified under CTH 85235100. Thus, it is apparent that change in classification of subject goods by the Department will not create any additional Basic Customs Duty liability for the appellant - the appellant is not liable to pay the Basic Custo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fine in the impugned order is sustainable under the law - however, the quantum of redemption fine need to be reduced. - Penalty u/s 112 and 114 AA of the Act - Held that: - the statute mandates that penalty can be imposed for use of false and incorrect material, the authorities have to prove that in fact, the person concerned has deceived the exchequer for his wrongful gain - In this case, the Department has not brought on any evidence to prove appellant's guilt in mis-declaring the goods - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the case are that the appellant imported three nos. of Speed Post Parcel at Foreign Post Office (FPO), Kotla, New Delhi. The goods were containing the declaration of Artificial Gift Item , valued at USD 110. The Customs Officers after examining the goods, found that the parcel contained "unbranded Micro SD Cards of various storage capacities. Since there was mis-declaration, the Department seized the same on 20.01.2016. A show cause notice dated 20.07.2016 was issued, proposing to confi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed order has also imposed a penalty of ₹ 20,00,000/- under Section 112 and 114 AA of the Act. 2. The ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant argued the matter at length on merit. It is submitted that memory cards are classifiable under sub-heading No.85235220 and not under 85235100, as claimed by the Department. It is also submitted that even the memory cards are classifiable under sub-heading No.85235100, as claimed by the Revenue, still the same are covered by the exemption Notification .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

not justified. 3. The ld. DR for Revenue reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. It is submitted that the adjudicating authority after considering the CBEC Circular No. 12/2012 dated 01.05.2012 observed that Micro S.D. Cards are classifiable under CTH No. 85235100. He also stated that since the goods were mis-declared, the appellant is exposed to the penal consequences provided under the statute and accordingly, imposition of redemption fine and penalty in the adjudication order i .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

dated 01.05.2012. We note that the goods of Tariff Item No. 8523 are exempted from payment of Basic Customs Duty under Notification No. 24/2005-Cus., dated 01.03.2005, as amended. Further, the CBEC vide Circular dated 20.07.2016 has also clarified that the benefit of the said notification is extendable to Micro/Mini SD cards classified under CTH 85235100. Thus, it is apparent that change in classification of subject goods by the Department will not create any additional Basic Customs Duty liabi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

regarding such declaration; and that, it came to know about such incident, only after the officers of DRI seized the consignments. We find that the impugned order at paragraph 25(c) has recorded the submissions of the appellant that it did not mis-declare the goods and also no documents were filed by it before investigation of the matter by the DRI. 7. In this case, the adjudicating authority has rejected the value of imported goods declared by the appellant on the import documents and re-determ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

made in the post parcel do not correspond to the actual goods imported by the appellant. Thus, confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine in the impugned order is sustainable under the law. However, considering the quantum of redemption fine imposed on the appellant, we are of the view that the same is in the higher side, inasmuch as, the appellant had not made any false declaration with regard to the actual content in the parcel, filed proper documents for assessment of the Bill o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version