9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification of 'Magnetic Accupressure Treatment Instrument' under 90.19 or 94.04, Financial hardship waiver, Applicability of Circulars, Acceptance of Corporate Guarantee. Classification Issue: The Tribunal addressed the second round of appeal regarding the classification of the 'Magnetic Accupressure Treatment Instrument,' with the appellant claiming it should be under 90.19, not 94.04 as previously held. The Tribunal had earlier granted a waiver of pre-deposit and directed the continuation of a bank guarantee for the appeal. The appellant replaced the bank guarantee with a Corporate Guarantee, which the Customs Authorities accepted. The matter had been pending since 2000, and the Tribunal emphasized the need for expeditious hearing due to the significant amount involved. The Jt. CDR argued for full compliance with Section 129E before considering an early hearing application. Applicability of Circulars: The Jt. CDR cited decisions from previous cases to support the view that demands had been correctly confirmed and that the Circular dated 29-5-2003 would apply. On the other hand, the appellant relied on a Supreme Court decision and Circular No. 56/2001 to argue that the demands should not stand. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for a detailed examination of which circular would be applicable during the regular hearings. Financial Hardship Waiver: Regarding the financial position of the appellant, the Jt. CDR disputed the true financial status presented by the appellant, suggesting that a waiver based on financial hardship was not warranted. Despite the dispute over the Corporate Guarantee's quantum and applicability, the Tribunal ordered the continuation of the earlier stay order on a Guarantee, whether it be a Bank Guarantee, Corporate Guarantee, or Personal Guarantee of the Proprietor, to cover a specific amount until the appeal's disposal. Acceptance of Corporate Guarantee: The Tribunal noted the acceptance of the Corporate Guarantee by the Customs Department, even though there were disputes over the amount and applicability. The Tribunal directed that the Guarantee, covering a specific amount, should remain in force until the final hearing. Compliance with this directive was set for a specific date, after which the matter would proceed to final hearing. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the stay and early hearing application based on the above terms, emphasizing the importance of addressing the classification issue, complying with relevant circulars, considering financial hardship, and ensuring the validity of the Guarantee until the final hearing.
|
