2017 (3) TMI 1011 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Tylosin Phosphate Powder (Poultry feed) - classified under CTH 23099010 or under CTH 29419090? - whether appellant had mis-declared the imported goods Tylosin Phosphate Powder (Poultry feed) during the period i.e. 21.06.2000 to 05.07.2005 or otherwise? - time limitation - Held that - the imported goods would merit classification under CTH 2309 as the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Venky s India Ltd. 2000 (11) TMI 967 - CEGAT, MUMBAI it was held that the product Tylosin Phosphate Powder (Poultry feed) would fall under CTH 2309. Extended period of limitation - Held that - no malafide intention can be attributed to such a view as to classification of goods - appellant had only declared the description of item declared as Tylosin Phosphate Powder on the Bill of Entry as per the documents received by them from the supplier and classified the Heading as understood by them, if Revenue had a dispute on the said CTH, they could have changed the same when the said Bills of Entry were filed for assessment by the Proper Officer. As there was no change in classification as claim by appellant, now revenue cannot say there was intention to evade CVD by way of mis-declaration - extended period of limitation not invocable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of imported goods under different Customs Tariff Headings, mis-declaration of goods, benefit of reduced duty, limitation on challenging classification, imposition of penalties.

Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The appeal addressed the issue of whether the appellant had mis-declared the imported goods "Tylosin Phosphate Powder" during a specific period. The appellant imported the goods, declared them as such, and classified them under CTH 23099010, claiming benefits under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. However, a Bill of Entry was reclassified under CTH 29419090, leading to a dispute regarding the applicability of reduced rates of duty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the reclassification, leading to a demand for differential duty, interest, and penalties.

2. Mis-declaration and Limitation:
The appellant argued the matter on merits and limitation. On merits, the appellant contended that the product should be classified under Chapter 23, not Chapter 29 as claimed by the Revenue. They maintained that they correctly classified the goods based on a bonafide belief, supported by a Tribunal decision in a similar case. The appellant's belief in the classification continued until their appeal was dismissed. The issue of mis-declaration was based on one Bill of Entry where the product was classified differently. The Tribunal found that the appellant had a bonafide belief in the classification under CTH 2309, and no malafide intention could be attributed to their actions.

3. Decision and Ruling:
After considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the reclassification from CTH 2309 to CTH 2941 was inconsequential for the period in question. The demand for the period was set aside on limitation grounds, as the appellant had a bonafide belief in the classification under CTH 2309, supported by a previous Tribunal decision. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had declared the goods based on information received from the supplier and maintained the classification as understood by them. As there was no change in classification during assessment, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant on limitation grounds, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on the bonafide belief of the appellant in the classification of the imported goods, leading to the setting aside of the demand based on limitation grounds. The ruling highlighted the importance of proper classification and the impact of mis-declaration on duty liabilities, emphasizing the need for clarity and consistency in customs declarations.