Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2015 (3) TMI 242 - AT - Customs


Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975; Countervailing Duty applicability; Correctness of goods description in Bills of Entries; Revenue's contention regarding classification change.

Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975:
The appellant imported wheel rims for a harvester combine and claimed classification under heading 8433 9000, not attracting Countervailing Duty. The goods were examined, and the Chartered Engineer confirmed the description, leading to clearance on payment of basic customs duty.

Countervailing Duty applicability:
Subsequently, another consignment was imported, and the classification was changed to Chapter 87, attracting Countervailing Duty based on a different Chartered Engineer's opinion that the wheel rims were for commercial vehicles. This change led to a show cause notice proposing duty demand on earlier imports.

Correctness of goods description in Bills of Entries:
The Revenue alleged that the earlier imports were also for commercial vehicles, initiating proceedings against the appellant. The Revenue's case relied on the subsequent Bills of Entries' description change and the Chartered Engineer's certificate, leading to the duty demand.

Revenue's contention regarding classification change:
The Revenue argued that the earlier imports were misclassified based on the subsequent Bills of Entries. However, the Tribunal found that the Chartered Engineer had previously confirmed the goods as wheel rims for a harvester combine, and changing the classification based on the weight and supplier alone was unjustified. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates