9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods. 2. Applicability of the extended period for duty recovery. 3. Validity of the Board's Circular No. 56/2001. 4. Determination of goods corresponding to the circular. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Imported Goods: The primary issue in this appeal is the classification of the goods imported by the appellant, described as "magnetic accupressure treating instrument." The appellant claimed classification under Heading 9019.10 of the Tariff, which includes "Mechano-therapy appliances; massage apparatus; psychological aptitude-testing apparatus." The department, however, classified the goods under Heading 9404.29, which covers "articles of bedding and similar furnishings," including mattresses and pillows. The appellant argued that the goods should be classified as medical apparatus due to their therapeutic properties, supported by certificates from South Korea and Japan. The Tribunal noted that the goods consist of a mattress, pillow, and quilt, designed to provide a "magnetic shower" effect and simulate massage techniques. However, the Tribunal concluded that the goods do not meet the definition of "massage apparatus" as they do not involve manipulation of the body by an external force. The Tribunal upheld the department's classification under Heading 9404.29. 2. Applicability of the Extended Period for Duty Recovery: The department issued twenty-five notices to the appellant, proposing to recover duty short-levied by classifying the goods under Heading 9404.29. Another notice issued on 8-12-2000 proposed classification under Heading 9404.29, confiscation of goods pending clearance, recovery of duty on goods cleared between June 1997 to July 2000, and a penalty on the importer. The Commissioner adjudicated on all notices, confirming the classification under Heading 9404.29 and demanding duty short-levied of Rs. 16.03 crores on goods imported between March and July 2000. The Commissioner, however, held that the extended period invoked in the last notice could not be applied and dropped the demand for Rs. 17.92 crores. The Tribunal did not interfere with the Commissioner's finding on this score. 3. Validity of the Board's Circular No. 56/2001: The appellant relied on Circular No. 56/2001, issued by the Board, which classified similar goods under Heading 9019.10 as "massage apparatus." The Tribunal noted that the circular was intended to bring uniformity in classification and is binding on the department. However, the Tribunal found that the classification determined by the Board was based on unsubstantiated claims about the scientific theory of magnetism. Despite this, the Tribunal acknowledged that such circulars are binding on the officers and emphasized the need for uniformity in classification. 4. Determination of Goods Corresponding to the Circular: The Tribunal observed that the circular was issued after the Commissioner's order and that the applicability of the circular to the goods under consideration required verification. The Tribunal noted that the circular relied on technical literature and catalogues of similar locally manufactured goods. The Tribunal concluded that the matter should be examined in detail to determine whether the goods in question correspond to the goods referred to in the circular. The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for a detailed examination and determination of facts, including the nature of the locally manufactured goods and the applicability of the circular to the goods in question. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a detailed examination of whether the goods in question correspond to the goods referred to in the circular and to determine the applicability of the circular to the goods imported prior to its issue. The Commissioner was directed to pass orders after hearing the submissions of the appellant and providing a reasonable opportunity for the same.
|
