TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 209
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Air Cargo Complex (CIU-ACC) customs authorities have conducted detailed examination of the imported goods and found that the goods were actually 'Roll Your Own Tobacco' packed in retail pouches of 50 grams each. The customs authorities had disputed the classification of the product and found that necessary declaration in terms of Legal Metrology Act and the Rules made thereunder have not been mentioned in the packages. Accordingly, the said imported goods were seized under a seizure memo dated 01.02.2021 and detailed investigation was conducted by CIU-ACC and show cause proceedings were initiated by issue of SCN dated 29.07.2021. In adjudication of the said show cause notice, the learned Commissioner of Customs had discussed the role of the appellant and had imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 in respect of the above import consignment and had also imposed penalty of Rs.50,000/- on the appellant under Section 112(a) ibid, in respect of the past consignments involving 16 B/Es. Feeling aggrieved with the above order, the appellant had filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. In the i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....claration, produce to the proper officer the invoice, if any, and such other documents relating to the imported goods as may be prescribed. (4A) The importer who presents a bill of entry shall ensure the following, namely:- (a) the accuracy and completeness of the information given therein; (b) the authenticity and validity of any document supporting it; and (c) compliance with the restriction or prohibition, if any, relating to the goods under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force. (5) If the proper officer is satisfied that the interests of revenue are not prejudicially affected and that there was no fraudulent intention, he may permit substitution of a bill of entry for home consumption for a bill of entry for warehousing or vice versa." From the plain reading of above legal provisions, it transpires that in order to determine the appropriate duties of customs payable on any imported goods, an importer is required to file a Bill of Entry (B/E) giving all required particulars of such imported goods for assessment to duty. It is also to be noted that in terms of definition of the term 'assessment' provided under Section 2(2) ibid, deter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an Countries creates labour crisis which resulted in non-affixing of labels under Legal Metrology as well as precautionary warring under COTPA. 31.5.1 In his written submission, Shri Thakkar contended that the impugned B/E was filed under First Check Examination basis as well as for Warehousing. However, I find that though the B/E declared the brands of the imported goods, but the same were not actually Cut- Tobacco in terms of definition in the Supplementary Note (2) to Chapter 24 of Customs Tariff. Therefore, the CTH declared in the B/E, i.e. 2403 9970 is not correct and required to be changed to CTH 2403 1990 which covers Other Tobacco Products having Brand Names. Further, not only in the present case, same practice was adopted by the CHA by classifying the goods under CTH 2403 9970 by declaring the same as Cut Tobacco. This fact has been admitted by Shri Aakash Thakkar in his voluntary statement recorded u/s. 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. 31.5.2. I find that CB firm is a nodal agency between Customs and Trade and bound to comply with certain mandatory obligations envisaged under Customs Brokers' Licensing Regulations, 2018. The CB should aware all the provisions of Cu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nally signed any false document. 32.1.1 l find that the Investigating Agency proposed that the goods are correctly classifiable under CTH 2403 1990 for past consignments of the noticee.1. In this regard I have already discussed at length about the Classification of impugned goods at para no 25.1 to 25.9 supra. I find that it is pretty clear that the importer did not disclose the enduse of the imported goods at the time of its importation and taking the verbatim meaning of CTH and cleared the goods under CTH 2403 9970 which attracts lower rate of GST Compensation Cess. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the importer willfully misstated the classification of goods as well as suppressed the facts from the Department with an intent to evade applicable GST Compensation Cess, which resulted in duty short levied of legitimate Custom duty. 31.4. In view of the facts above and legal pronouncement, I find that investigation has not brought any evidence to substantiate that noticee Shri Ali Virani, Proprietor of M/s. Viranis Impex had intentionally signed any false document. Also, it is matter of fact that the said B/E dated 21.01.2021 was filed under First Check Examination basis as w....