9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (12) TMI 1027 - AT - CustomsAdditional Duty of Customs (CVD) demnded - Misdeclaration - mis-classifying importing electrical apparatus under 8538 of CTA & CETA in the Bills of Entry without declaring their Retail Sale Price - Held that - The impugned goods were basically electrical apparatus and were neither sold by weight or by measure - It was clear that if the RSP was available or known, the only appropriate course would be to adopt the RSP of the product for assessment, even though the same may not have been declared on the Bills of Entry - The duty demand was based on the RSP applied by ABB for each clearance upon sale of the imported products; there was no need to ascertain the RSP by other methods - it is abundantly clear that in the absence of such rules issued in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 4A of the CEA, there was no statutory machinery to determine the retail sale price in respect of goods manufactured and cleared by a manufacturer without declaring the RSP on such goods - Decided in favor of the assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported electrical goods. 2. Applicability of Retail Sale Price (RSP) based assessment for Additional Duty of Customs (CVD). 3. Declaration requirements under the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977. 4. Determination of RSP for imported goods. 5. Validity of the demand for differential duty, interest, and penalty. 6. Legality of confiscation of goods and imposition of fine. 7. Applicability of limitation period. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Imported Electrical Goods: The appellant, M/s. ABB Limited, was found to have mis-classified imported electrical goods under Chapter Heading 8538 instead of 8536 to avoid RSP-based assessment of CVD. The Commissioner confirmed the correct classification under CTH 8536 based on the test report from Electronics Test and Development Centre, Bangalore. 2. Applicability of RSP-Based Assessment for CVD: The Commissioner ruled that the imported goods were subject to RSP-based assessment under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as specified in Notification No. 13/2002-C.E. (N.T.) and amended by Notification No. 2/2006-C.E. (N.T.). ABB's contention that the goods were meant for industrial use and not for retail consumers was rejected. 3. Declaration Requirements under SW&M (PC) Rules, 1977: ABB argued that the goods were exempt from the SW&M (PC) Rules due to their industrial use. However, the Commissioner found that ABB had not complied with Rule 33, which required specific declarations on imported packages. The goods were marked with the declaration "packed for the exclusive use in any industry" only at the warehouse, not at the port of import. 4. Determination of RSP for Imported Goods: The Tribunal noted that there was no provision in the Customs Tariff Act (CTA) to determine RSP for imported goods where the importer did not declare the RSP. The Central Excise (Determination of Retail Sale Price of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2008, issued under Section 4A(4) of the Central Excise Act, came into force on 1-3-2008, but there was no similar provision in the CTA for the period before this date. 5. Validity of the Demand for Differential Duty, Interest, and Penalty: The Tribunal found that the demand for differential duty was not sustainable due to the lack of a statutory mechanism to determine RSP for the period in question. Consequently, the demand for interest and the imposition of an equal penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act were also set aside. 6. Legality of Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Fine: The Tribunal vacated the order of confiscation and the fine of Rs. 40 Crores, as the goods in question were not under seizure. The confiscation was deemed invalid. 7. Applicability of Limitation Period: ABB raised the plea of limitation, arguing that the demand was time-barred and that the extended period of limitation was not applicable. The Tribunal did not specifically address this issue, as the primary grounds for setting aside the demand were the lack of statutory provisions for determining RSP. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the demand for differential duty, interest, and penalty, and vacated the order of confiscation and fine. The primary reason was the absence of statutory provisions to determine RSP for the period in question. The appeal was pronounced in open court on 21-12-2010.
|
