9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975; Confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962; Imposition of penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Classification of Imported Goods: The appellants, engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products, imported items from Germany for the manufacture of eye drop delivery systems. The dispute arose regarding the classification of these items under the Customs Tariff Act. The Revenue classified the goods under heading 3923 30.00, considering them as bottles falling under this category. However, the appellants argued that the imported items, consisting of dropper bottles, dropper inserts, and tamper-proof closures, collectively formed an "eye drop delivery" entity, distinct from conventional bottles. The Tribunal analyzed the characteristics and purpose of the imported items, emphasizing that they were specifically designed for aseptic packaging and dispensing of eye drops. The Tribunal concluded that the goods should be classified under 3923 30.90 as "others," exempt from licensing requirements, rather than under 3923 30.00 as bottles. This decision was based on the essential purpose and specialized nature of the imported items, which warranted a classification different from traditional containers like bottles, carboys, or flasks. Confiscation and Penalty Imposition: The Commissioner had initially denied clearance of the goods under license-free conditions, leading to the confiscation of the imported items under section 111(d) of the Customs Act. Additionally, a fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 25,000 were imposed under section 112(a). However, upon reclassification of the goods by the Tribunal under heading 3923 30.90, which did not require a license for import, the liability for confiscation was not upheld. Consequently, the penalty imposed under section 112(a) was set aside, and the order of confiscation was revoked. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, thereby relieving the appellants from the financial penalties imposed earlier. In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed the issue of classifying imported goods for the manufacture of eye drop delivery systems under the Customs Tariff Act. By distinguishing the specialized nature and essential purpose of the items from conventional bottles, the Tribunal reclassified the goods under a different category, exempting them from licensing requirements. This reclassification led to the setting aside of the confiscation order and the penalty imposed on the appellants, ultimately allowing their appeal.
|
