2013 (10) TMI 573 - AT - Customs

Classification of TV Tunners - Assessment of Goods Waiver of Pre-deposit Held that - The issue revolves around a very narrow compass - Prima-facie the practice of assessment of T.V. Tunners imported by the applicant as well as across the country, have been classifying it under Heading 84.73 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - By a Special Investigation and interpretation of competing entries, the Department has classified the said product, i.e T.V. Tunner, under the Heading 8528 and demanded differential duty revising the earlier assessment practice - the classification of T.V. Tunners under Heading 8528 against claimed Heading 8473, was debatable - the applicants were able to make a prima-facie case for total waiver of differential duty confirmed, hence, predeposit of duty confirmed was waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the appeal - Stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975; Waiver of predeposit of duty; Misclassification leading to differential duty demand.

Classification of goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975:
The case involved the classification of T.V. Tuners under Tariff Heading 8473 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which was later revised by the Department to Heading 8528, resulting in a demand notice for differential duty. The appellant argued that the classification issue was debatable as the product had been consistently classified under Heading 8473 across the country. The Tribunal noted the narrow compass of the issue and found that the classification under Heading 8528 was indeed debatable. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant had made a prima facie case for a total waiver of the confirmed differential duty, and thus, the predeposit of duty was waived, with recovery stayed during the appeal's pendency.

Waiver of predeposit of duty:
The appellant had filed an application for the waiver of predeposit of duty amounting to Rs.2,06,395.14. The consultant representing the appellant argued that since the issue of classification was debatable and there was no suppression of facts leading to the revision of assessment practice, the demand for duty based solely on the opinion of the Chief Commissioner's conference was legally flawed. The Revenue's representative acknowledged that the misclassification under Heading 8473 had not resulted from non-disclosure or misleading facts by the appellant. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal granted the waiver of predeposit of duty, considering the debatable nature of the classification issue and the lack of evidence of suppression of facts by the appellant.

Misclassification leading to differential duty demand:
The misclassification of the T.V. Tuners under Heading 8473, which led to a special investigation and subsequent reclassification under Heading 8528 by the Department, resulted in a demand for differential duty. The appellant contended that the earlier misclassification did not stem from non-disclosure or misleading facts on their part. The Tribunal observed that the issue primarily revolved around the differing interpretations of the competing entries and the revision of the assessment practice. Given the debatable nature of the classification and the absence of evidence of intentional suppression of facts by the appellant, the Tribunal granted the waiver of the confirmed differential duty and stayed the recovery during the appeal process.