Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2006 (12) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2006 (12) TMI 276 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the reclassification of imported goods, abandonment of goods u/s 23(2) of the Customs Act, and imposition of penalty on the importer.

Reclassification of Imported Goods:
The respondent imported goods declared as "Stock Lot Bleached Hardwood Fluff and Softwood pulp" but upon examination, it was found that the goods were different and consisted of items such as Non-wovens, Non-woven fabric, and Retainer cloth. The Wood Pulp falling under Chapter sub-heading 4702.00.00 attracts a lower Customs duty rate compared to the imported goods. The Additional Commissioner reclassified the goods, demanded differential customs duty, and ordered for confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem upon payment of a fine.

Abandonment of Goods u/s 23(2) of the Customs Act:
The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the abandonment of the goods by the importer, stating that no action for the demand of duty can be initiated as the importer was not at fault. The department appealed, arguing that the abandonment provision u/s 23(2) can only be applied in bona fide cases where the importer relinquishes the goods in the normal course of business. However, the Tribunal held that the right of the importer to abandon the goods before clearance for home consumption is unconditional, and the decision to permit abandonment and set aside the demand was legal.

Imposition of Penalty:
The department sought restoration of the Additional Commissioner's order, contending that the importer had knowledge of the material difference in the imported goods. The Tribunal noted that even after abandonment, penal action can be considered if there is evidence of fraud on the part of the importer. However, in this case, no evidence was presented to show that the importer had knowledge of the discrepancy in the goods. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision to set aside the penalty imposed on the importer.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected the department's appeal, affirming the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow the abandonment of the goods and setting aside the demand and penalty. The Tribunal emphasized that the right to abandon goods before clearance for home consumption is unconditional u/s 23(2) of the Customs Act. The stay petition was also disposed of accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates