2011 (1) TMI 1088 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - Anti dumping duty - Classification - appellant made a request for re-export of the said goods to the original exporters inasmuch as it was financial not viable for them to pay Anti Dumping Duty. - Held that - Admittedly, the goods were declared as tapes and the same were found to be tapes . Further, classifying the said goods under a different Customs tariff heading than the one adopted by the Revenue for the purpose of Anti Dumping Duty, cannot said to be with a mala fide intention, in the absence of any evidence to that effect. In any case, adoption of correct classification is in the hands of Customs authorities who can always change the same from the declared classification to the correct classification. To classify the product under a particular heading, according to the understanding of the importer, by itself cannot be held a ground so as to confiscate the imported goods. As such, we find no infirmity in the view adopted by the Commissioner. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading, Confiscation of imported goods, Anti Dumping Duty imposition, Request for re-export of goods.

Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading:
The case involved imported measuring tapes of steel declared under Tariff Heading 9403 90 00 by the respondents, while the Revenue argued for classification under Customs Tariff Heading 9017 80 10 for Anti Dumping Duty imposition. The Commissioner confirmed the Anti Dumping Duty but rejected the request for re-export. The Revenue contended that the importer misdeclared the goods with dishonest intention to evade duty. However, the Tribunal found no merit in this argument as the goods were declared as 'tapes' and were found to be so. The Tribunal emphasized that the correct classification is within the Customs authorities' purview, and the importer's understanding cannot be a basis for confiscation without evidence of malafide intent. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on classification.

Confiscation of imported goods:
The Revenue appealed the part of the order where the Commissioner did not confiscate the imported goods. The Revenue alleged that the importer had a dishonest intention to evade Anti Dumping Duty by misdeclaring the classification of the goods. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of malafide intent in the importer's actions. The Tribunal highlighted that the goods were declared as 'tapes' and were indeed 'tapes', and any discrepancy in classification did not warrant confiscation. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the Commissioner's decision not to confiscate the goods.

Anti Dumping Duty imposition:
The Commissioner confirmed the Anti Dumping Duty of Rs. 27,06,354.00 on the imported measuring tapes of steel. The Tribunal did not find any merit in the Revenue's argument that the importer had dishonest intentions to evade duty. The Tribunal emphasized that the correct classification lies with the Customs authorities, and without evidence of malafide intent, the goods cannot be confiscated based on a different classification. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision on the imposition of Anti Dumping Duty.

Request for re-export of goods:
During adjudication, the appellant requested re-export of the goods to the original exporters due to financial constraints in paying the Anti Dumping Duty. The Commissioner rejected this request in the impugned order. However, the Tribunal did not address this specific issue in its judgment, focusing instead on the classification and confiscation aspects of the case. Therefore, the decision on the request for re-export was not explicitly discussed in the Tribunal's judgment.