2014 (4) TMI 58 - AT - Customs

Waiver of pre-deposit - Classification dispute - import of various information technology goods including Facsimile machines - extended period of limitation - Held that - the present case is the one where there was no clarification on the issue of classification and benefit of exemption notification and that it is not a case where the appellant had misdeclared the goods, it would not be appropriate to invoke extended period. In a similar case, but relating to printers, the CBEC had to examine the matter and come out with CBEC Circular No. 11/2008-Customs, dated 1.7.2008. The instant case appear to be equally complex and it appear to me that there was no clarity, whatsoever, on the classification aspect, either to the Department or to the appellants. I find that in the instant case, the show Cause notice was issued on 17.01.2012 in respect of demand for the period from 27.01.2007 to 25.05.2009, as per the Annexure A attached to the SCN. The SCN as well as the impugned order do not elaborate as to why there was willful suppression or fraud except that in the impugned order, it is stated that the appellant had suppressed the full details of Fax machine and claimed specific tariff heading provided for Fax machine capable for connecting to an ADP machine or to a network. No other evidence is on record to support the ground of suppression - Prima facie demand is barred by limitation - stay granted.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading, Invocation of longer period of limitation for demanding duty, Allegations of suppression of facts and intent to evade payment of duty, Prima facie view on limitation and granting unconditional stay.

Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading:
The judgment revolves around the classification of imported goods by M/s. Unifax System Ltd. The appellant imported Facsimile machines from M/s. Panasonic Asia Pacific Pte Ltd., Singapore, declaring them under Customs Tariff Heading 8443 32 60 with nil rate of duty. However, investigations later suggested that the goods should be classified under heading 88433 39 70, attracting a duty rate of 7.5%. The dispute arose from the differing views on the classification, leading to an impugned order by the Commissioner confirming duty and penalties. The Tribunal analyzed the classification issue extensively, emphasizing the importance of correct classification and the role of the Revenue authorities in assessing goods under the appropriate heading.

Invocation of longer period of limitation for demanding duty:
The Commissioner invoked an extended period of limitation for demanding duty, alleging willful suppression of facts by the importers to evade payment of Customs duty. The Tribunal scrutinized this invocation, highlighting the necessity for positive acts of suppression or misstatement by the assessee to justify the extended period. It emphasized that mere classification claims by the importer, if processed and cleared by the officers, do not automatically imply suppression or fraud. The judgment cited legal precedents and Circulars to underscore the need for clarity in classification issues and the limitations on invoking extended periods without concrete evidence of malafide intentions.

Allegations of suppression of facts and intent to evade payment of duty:
The Commissioner upheld the invocation of extended period, alleging that the importers willfully suppressed facts regarding the goods' description and features to evade duty payment. The Tribunal critically analyzed this allegation, emphasizing that in the absence of clear evidence of suppression or fraud, mere classification disputes do not warrant penal action. It referenced a previous order by Commissioner (Appeals) highlighting the complexity and lack of clarity in the classification issue, further supporting the view that the demand was barred by limitation due to the absence of willful suppression or fraud.

Prima facie view on limitation and granting unconditional stay:
Based on the detailed analysis of the classification issue, invocation of extended period, and allegations of suppression, the Tribunal concluded that the demand in question was barred by limitation. Consequently, the Tribunal granted unconditional stay to the appellant, aligning with the observations made by Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the lack of clarity on classification during the relevant period. The judgment underscored the importance of adherence to legal provisions and the necessity for concrete evidence to support allegations of suppression or fraud in duty-related matters.

---