2017 (8) TMI 1394 - AT - Customs

Concessional rate of duty - N/N. 62/2004-Cus., dated 12-5-2004 - case of the Revenue is that they should be considered as Articles of Jewellery not eligible for concession under the said notification - Held that - In the face of the declarations made in the bills of entry as well as description of the gods in the import invoices, we note that a change in the categorization of the imported goods cannot be made in absence of the material facts to the effect that the declarations made in the bills of entry or the description in the import invoices are incorrect or deliberately misdeclared. The declarations as per the documents and the goods in physical form were available at the time of assessment and the goods were cleared after such due assessment. The categorization of assessed goods were sought to be changed only on the interpretation of various terms and the same was not based on clear material supporting evidence. In absence of such evidence, we agree with the impugned orders that no denial of exemption can be agreed upon on the basis of the presumptions and interpretative, post-clearance of the goods, after due assessment. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Application of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 62/2004-Cus. on imported goods declared as "18 KT Gold Mountings."

Analysis:
The appeals by Revenue involved a common issue regarding the application of a concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 62/2004-Cus. on items imported as "18 KT Gold Mountings." The dispute arose when show cause notices were issued to reclassify the imported products as semi-finished gold jewelry, which would not be eligible for the benefit under the said notification. The Commissioner, however, based on declarations in bills of entry and relevant circulars, dropped the proceedings initiated by the show cause notices. The Revenue contested these findings, arguing that the imported items should be considered as gold jewelry, not eligible for the concession.

During the hearing, the Revenue claimed that the imported items should be classified as "Articles of Jewellery" and not eligible for the concession. The Original Authority's decision was based on the fact that the proposal to deny the concession was merely a presumption that the goods were not mountings. The impugned order highlighted that the interpretation of terms like "Mounting" and "Jewellery" had been clarified by the Board. It was emphasized that without concrete evidence proving the declarations in bills of entry or import invoices were incorrect or deliberately misdeclared, a change in the categorization of the imported goods could not be made post-assessment and clearance.

The Tribunal found that the attempted change in the categorization of the assessed goods was solely based on interpretation rather than clear material evidence. It was concluded that denial of exemption could not be justified on presumptions and interpretations made after the goods had been cleared following due assessment. Consequently, the appeals by Revenue were rejected, and the C.O. in Appeal No. C/706/2007 was disposed of accordingly.