2015 (12) TMI 1479 - AT - Customs

Import of two Vessels for breaking purpose Demand of differential duty - bunker and stores - Burden to prove - Wrong classification of goods - Held that - The Adjudicating Authority held that the fuel oil, engine oil and ship stores, as spare parts, food stuffs and others, as per sub para (C) of CBEC Circular No. 37/96-Cus., dated 03.07.1996, should be classified separately under heading no. 89.08 and the importer should pay the differential amount of duty of ₹ 3,81,865.00. By the impugned order, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. Appellant contended before the Commissioner (Appeals) that the burden was on the Department to prove that the subject goods bunkers and stores were imported and cleared by the importer through the Customs barrier. The Commissioner (Appeals) proceeded on the basis that the subject bunker and stores were declared by the master of the vessel in the manifest, which was statutory document. Hence, the contention of the appellant is not sustainable. - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under specific heading for duty payment; Burden of proof on the Department to establish importation of goods; Appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Analysis:
The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to appear for multiple scheduled hearings, prompting the appeal to be taken up for hearing. The case involved the importation of two vessels for breaking purposes, with a dispute arising over the classification of various goods imported along with the vessels. The Adjudicating Authority held that certain items should be classified separately under a specific heading, necessitating the payment of additional duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that the appellant had argued that the burden of proof regarding the importation of goods lay with the Department. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) considered the goods declared in the vessel's manifest as sufficient evidence of importation, rejecting the appellant's contention. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification to overturn the Commissioner (Appeals) order.

In light of the above analysis, the Tribunal dismissed the appellant's appeal and disposed of the Revenue's cross objection. The judgment reaffirmed the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification and duty payment on the imported goods, emphasizing the importance of documentary evidence in establishing importation for customs purposes.