2015 (10) TMI 31 - AT - Customs

Classification of calcareous stone Exemption under Notification 103/2009-Cus Confiscation of improperly imported goods Adjudicating authority vide impugned order held that goods imported by appellant would be classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 6802 2900 however, denied benefit of exemption Notification 103/2009-Cus and ordered confiscation of said goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 Held that - Goods were falling under 6802 29 00 under Customs Tariff, ITC (HS) Policy relating to corresponding entry was free under EXIM code 6802 29 00 and there was no value restrictions attached to goods Therefore, there was no policy restriction at time of import either as to value or on account of other reasons From provisions of policy, it was evident that classification under Indian Customs Tariff and ITC (HS) were aligned completely with each other If that be so, Customs cannot classify goods under different entry other than 6802 29 00 in respect of goods under importation In view of factual and legal position, it was clear that there cannot be two classification for Customs duty and for ITC (HS) purpose Question of goods being liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) also would not arise Decided in favour of Assesse.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading, denial of benefit of exemption Notification 103/2009-Cus, confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

1. The appeal concerns the classification of goods imported under the EPCG scheme by the appellant and the denial of exemption under Notification 103/2009-Cus by the adjudicating authority. The Commissioner classified the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 6802 2900, leading to confiscation and imposition of penalties. The Tribunal's earlier decision favored the appellant's classification under CTH 6802 2900, allowing the benefit of the exemption. However, the High Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration due to lack of conclusive findings by the Tribunal.

2. The appellant argues that the goods should be classified under entry 6802 2900 for both Customs duty and ITC(HS) purposes, as there was no entry 6802 2200 under ITC(HS) at the time of import. The alignment of ITC(HS) with the Customs Tariff necessitates identical classification. The appellant also relies on a Supreme Court decision supporting uniform classification under both systems, emphasizing the incorrectness of the adjudicating authority's findings.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the Customs Tariff and ITC(HS) entries, highlighting that goods falling under 6802 29 00 were free from value restrictions. The alignment of EXIM classification with the Customs Tariff from 01/04/2002 mandated consistent classification. The Tribunal referenced a Supreme Court decision to reinforce the requirement of identical classification under both systems, emphasizing the omission of entry 6802 22 00 from ITC(HS) post-2009.

4. Consequently, the Tribunal found the adjudicating authority's classification erroneous and upheld the appellant's contention for classification under 6802 29 00. As there were no restrictions on importation under ITC(HS) for these goods, the denial of exemption and confiscation were deemed unwarranted. The appeal was allowed, granting relief to the appellant in line with the legal and factual analysis presented.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision on each aspect raised in the appeal.