9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of goods under different headings, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty, relief to importer, duty liability of 100% EOU.
Classification of Goods: The case involved a dispute over the correct classification of Polyester Fabric Yarn Dyed Woven imported by a 100% EOU. The importer claimed classification under Heading 5407.52, while the Revenue contended that the goods should be classified under Heading 5407.69. The original adjudicating authority had confiscated the goods, imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh, and a penalty of Rs. 50,000. Relief to Importer: The Commissioner (Appeals) extended relief to the importer by considering that the goods were polyester fabric, acknowledging the importer's classification under Heading 5407.61, and noting that the importer was not approached by Customs authorities for technical specifications. The Commissioner emphasized that the importer, being a 100% EOU with no duty liability, should not face confiscation or penalties for a wrong classification claim. Duty Liability of 100% EOU: It was established that the importer, as a 100% EOU, was not liable to pay duty. The Tribunal's decision in a similar case supported the notion that a wrong claim of classification should not lead to allegations of misstatement or suppression by the importer. The Revenue did not dispute the EOU's duty exemption status, further supporting the view that incorrect classification should not result in confiscation or penalties. Judgment: The Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, finding no fault in the relief granted to the importer. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that the importer's misclassification did not benefit them financially due to their duty exemption status. Therefore, the incorrect classification did not warrant confiscation of goods or imposition of penalties.
|
