9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (11) TMI 1433 - AT - CustomsClassification of goods - Decking Termo Jasen TT 220 CC Zaobljeni Profile - classified under CTH 4407 95 00 or under CTH 4409 10 90? - Held that - we find that there is a clear finding by Commissioner (A) that issue of classification cannot be settled at this stage as no samples were drawn. However, we are shown that samples were drawn. The fact as to whether the same are still available with the Revenue or not is a fact which requires further verifications - we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for proper classification after finding out the availability of the samples and after getting the same tested - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Classification of goods under CTH 4407 95 00 or 4409 10 90, redemption fine, penalty imposition.
Classification Issue: The appellant filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of goods under CTH 4407 95 00, but it was found that the goods were classifiable under CTH 4409 10 90 as flooring material. The appellant requested release under Heading 4409, paid CVD accordingly, and the assessment was done under Heading 4409. The Commissioner (A) rejected the appeal but reduced the redemption fine and penalty. The issue of classification was not settled as no samples were drawn initially. The appellant claimed samples were drawn, but the Revenue argued that the samples were not retained for further testing. The Tribunal found that if the Revenue challenges the classification, they should draw and test samples properly. Previous imports were classified under Heading 4407 without dispute, so the Revenue needed to establish proper classification under Heading 4409 for the present import. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, remanded the matter for proper classification after verifying sample availability, and advised adopting the previous classification if samples were not available. Redemption Fine and Penalty Issue: The Tribunal noted that since the Revenue did not challenge the classification of previous imports and the appellant's claim was based on the same, there was no justification for confiscation without redemption fine or penalty imposition. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the redemption fine and penalty. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
