2017 (9) TMI 1139 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus. dated 01.03.2002 - misdeclaration of goods - Crossslinkable Polyethylene Compounds - Held that - importer has claimed the benefit of concessional duty for goods which were not entitled to the same. Consequently, the misdeclaration also stands established. Consequently, the order of confiscation of the impugned goods with the imposition of redemption fine and penalty also merits no interference - since the appellant will not be entitled to concessional duty, the demand for differential duty is to upheld along with payment of interest - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.21/2002-Cus.
2. Rejection of benefit of concessional rate of duty.
3. Request for retesting of samples.
4. Justification of impugned order based on chemical test report.
5. Entitlement to concessional duty.
6. Misdeclaration of goods.
7. Order of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty.
8. Demand for differential duty and interest.

Analysis:

1. Benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.21/2002-Cus:
The appellant imported consignments of specific compounds claiming the benefit of concessional duty under Notification No.21/2002-Cus. The issue revolved around whether the imported goods qualified for the concessional rate of duty as per the notification.

2. Rejection of benefit of concessional rate of duty:
Upon examination by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence and CRCL Baroda, it was found that the imported goods did not fall under the categories eligible for concessional duty as per the notification. The original authority rejected the benefit, leading to the subsequent appeal.

3. Request for retesting of samples:
The appellant requested retesting of samples from CRCL New Delhi, which was disregarded by the authorities. The argument was made that the order was passed without considering the retesting request, which could have potentially impacted the outcome.

4. Justification of impugned order based on chemical test report:
The impugned order was supported by a chemical test report from the Central Revenue Laboratory, Baroda, which played a crucial role in determining the eligibility of the goods for the concessional rate of duty.

5. Entitlement to concessional duty:
The Tribunal examined the chemical test report and concluded that the imported goods did not meet the criteria specified in the notification for concessional duty. Therefore, the appellant was deemed ineligible for the benefit.

6. Misdeclaration of goods:
The Tribunal found that the importer had claimed concessional duty for goods that were not entitled to such benefits, leading to a misdeclaration issue.

7. Order of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty:
Due to the misdeclaration and ineligibility for concessional duty, the order of confiscation of the goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty were upheld by the Tribunal as per the impugned order.

8. Demand for differential duty and interest:
As the appellant was not entitled to concessional duty, the Tribunal upheld the demand for the payment of the differential duty along with interest, reinforcing the decision based on the findings of the chemical test report.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal and affirming the decision regarding the benefit of concessional duty, misdeclaration of goods, and associated penalties and duties.