2008 (9) TMI 660 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Chapter 68.02 or 2515.12, applicability of previous judgments, necessity of a license for import, confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, penalty imposition, refund of CVD.

Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellant imported marble strips and claimed classification under Chapter 68.02, while the Department classified them under 2515.12. The appellant argued that the goods underwent processing beyond previous cases, justifying a different classification. The Tribunal analyzed the processes involved, noting that even with honing, the goods fell under 2515.12. The classification under 2515.12 required a license as per the Exim Policy, justifying the confiscation of goods. The Tribunal upheld the classification under 2515.12 and found no grounds for penalty imposition due to no wilful misdeclaration.

Applicability of Previous Judgments:
The Department cited previous judgments involving the same appellant to support their classification decision. However, the appellant argued that the processing differences in the present case warranted a distinct classification. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, found that the honing process did not alter the classification under 2515.12, as established in the previous judgments. The Tribunal upheld the classification based on this analysis.

Necessity of a License for Import:
The Tribunal ruled that the import of goods classified under 2515.12 required a license as per the Exim Policy. Since the goods were imported without the necessary license, the confiscation of goods was deemed justified. However, the Tribunal noted that there was no wilful misdeclaration by the appellant, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed.

Imposition of Redemption Fine:
The Tribunal found the redemption fine imposed to be less than 10% and not excessive. Therefore, the Tribunal did not consider it unreasonable and upheld the imposition of the redemption fine.

Refund of CVD:
The Tribunal mentioned that it was open to the appellant to seek a refund of the Countervailing Duty (CVD) paid by them if permissible under the law, providing a potential recourse for the appellant in this regard.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the imported goods under 2515.12, justified the confiscation due to the lack of a required license, set aside the penalty due to no wilful misdeclaration, upheld the redemption fine, and allowed the appellant to seek a refund of the CVD paid if permissible under the law.