9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Schedule and Exim Code, Confiscation of goods under Customs Act, Burden of proof on Department, Appeal against adjudicating authority's orders.
Classification of Goods: The appellants imported goods described as "Cables AVS" and "Cables" under Open General Licence (OGL) but were classified by Customs authorities as Plastic-coated Wire under a restricted category. The authorities proposed confiscation and penalties due to import restrictions. The appellants argued that the goods were winding wires of copper with PVC insulation, classifiable as cables under Exim Code 854420 29. The lower authorities classified the goods as plastic insulated wire under Exim Code 854419 02, which required a specific licence for import. The Tribunal analyzed the Exim Codes and found that the goods were multiple strands of copper wires insulated by PVC, correctly classified as insulated cables under Exim Code 854420 29. The authorities failed to rebut the appellants' claim regarding the material of the wires, leading to the incorrect classification under 854419 02. The Tribunal concluded that the lower authorities' classification was unfounded, setting aside the impugned orders and allowing the appeals. Confiscation and Penalties: The Customs authorities confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act due to improper classification and imposed fines under Section 112(a). The appellants waived the show cause notice, leading to spot adjudication orders by the Additional Commissioner of Customs. Redemption fines and penalties were imposed on the appellants for both consignments. The appeals to the Commissioner (Appeals) were rejected, prompting the present appeals. However, the Tribunal's reclassification of the goods as insulated cables under a different Exim Code rendered the confiscation and penalties unjustified. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, relieving the appellants from the imposed fines and penalties. Burden of Proof and Appeal Process: The appellants argued that the burden of proving the goods fell under the restricted category was on the Department, and no evidence contrary to the appellants' materials was presented. The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities failed to substantiate the distinction between cables and wires, crucial for proper classification. The Commissioner (Appeals) referenced HSN notes but lacked evidence to support the classification as plastic insulated wire. The Tribunal found these shortcomings in the lower authorities' judgments, leading to the acceptance of the appellants' claims and the allowance of the appeals. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of correctly applying Exim Codes based on the nature of the imported goods and commercial parlance rather than technical material distinctions.
|
