2017 (7) TMI 631 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 17/2001-Cus, dated 01.03.2001 - import of printer mechanism falling under the heading 8473.30 of Customs Tariff - Department took the view that the notification benefit cannot be claimed by the importers since the impugned item is an assembly containing Populated Printed Circuit Board (PPCB) - whether the imported item will fall within the ambit of an assembly which includes Populated Printed Circuit Board? - Held that - the contention of appellant has however not been addressed or suitably countered by the lower authorities. On the other hand, the lower authorities states the importer has accepted that the printed mechanism contains the populated printed circuit board - the denial by department of notification benefit involving a technical interpretation of the impugned item without any technical expert opinion, reeks of arbitrariness and is unjust and unfair - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues involved:
Import of item declared as printer mechanism under Customs Tariff, benefit of exemption Notification No.17/2001-Cus, whether item includes Populated Printed Circuit Board, denial of notification benefit, differential customs duties demanded, appeal against dismissal by Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

1. Common Disposal of Appeals:
The appeals pertain to the import of an item declared as a printer mechanism under the Customs Tariff, with both importers claiming the benefit of exemption under Notification No.17/2001-Cus. The Department contended that the benefit cannot be claimed as the item contains a Populated Printed Circuit Board (PPCB), leading to the demand for differential customs duties. The appeals were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the appellants to approach the forum for redressal.

2. Arguments and Submissions:
During the hearing, the appellants' counsel argued that the item in question does not include a Populated Printed Circuit Board, highlighting the lack of evidence supporting the Department's stance in the lower authorities' orders. Conversely, the Department's representative supported the impugned orders.

3. Examination of Facts:
After hearing both sides and reviewing the facts, the Tribunal delved into the specifics of Notification No.17/2001-Cus, which provides for a reduced basic custom duty rate for certain parts. The Notification explicitly excludes exemption for assemblies containing items like Populated Printed Circuit Boards.

4. Lack of Thorough Examination:
The crucial issue before the Division Bench was whether the imported item qualifies as an assembly including a Populated Printed Circuit Board. However, the lower authorities failed to thoroughly examine this aspect or seek expert opinions. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) focused on irrelevant issues, neglecting the core matter of determining the notification benefit.

5. Absence of Expert Opinion:
The Department did not seek expert opinions during the import stage or before issuing show cause notices to substantiate the claim that the item included a Populated Printed Circuit Board. Conversely, the importers obtained an opinion from a reputable organization, which was disregarded by the lower authorities.

6. Lack of Application of Mind:
The Tribunal criticized the lack of technical expertise in the proceedings and deemed the denial of notification benefit without proper technical evaluation as arbitrary and unfair. The lower authorities' failure to address the importers' contentions regarding the nature of the item further highlighted the deficiency in the decision-making process.

7. Decision and Conclusion:
Based on the analysis of the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned orders were unsustainable and set them aside. The appeals were allowed, granting consequential reliefs to the appellants.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues, arguments presented, examination of facts, deficiencies in the lower authorities' decisions, and the ultimate decision of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT HYDERABAD.

← Previous Next →