9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Whether the confiscation of imported goods and penalty imposed on the importer are sustainable in law based on misdeclaration of goods.
Summary: 1. The case involved the classification of imported goods (parts of compact fluorescent lamps) under CTH 8539 31 10 and the imposition of anti-dumping duty from the People's Republic of China. The original authority ordered confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and imposed a penalty under Section 112 of the Act, which was challenged in the present appeal. 2. The appeal did not contest the anti-dumping duty demand or the classification of goods under CTH 8539 31 10. The key issue was whether the finding of misdeclaration by the lower authorities, leading to confiscation and penalty, was valid based on the classification done by the authority. 3. The Tribunal observed that classification of goods is a departmental function, and it is for the assessing authority to determine the correct classification for duty assessment. The importer must pay duty as assessed, but confiscation cannot be justified solely on the grounds of misclassification as it is a departmental function. Citing precedent, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation and penalty imposed on the importer, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs.
|
