2018 (3) TMI 371 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of goods - prohibited goods - country of origin - whether the subject batteries could be considered as Heavy Duty AA R6 type of batteries as per IS-9128 specification? Held that - whatever material relied upon by Revenue for holding the goods as prohibited and in respect of country of origin, the same is not sufficient to hold against the appellant - As regard the issue that whether the batteries imported by the appellant is of IS-9128 specification or otherwise no confirmation was received from BIS. Therefore, only on the basis of report received from ERTL (W) it cannot be said that the appellant have mis-declared the goods. Country of origin - As regard the issue that whether the batteries imported by the appellant is of IS-9128 specification or otherwise no confirmation was received from BIS. Therefore, only on the basis of report received from ERTL (W) it cannot be said that the appellant have mis-declared the goods - Held that - the internet website detail alone is not sufficient - As per the documents and certificate of origin it was found that the goods are of Malaysian origin. Therefore, only on the basis of internet website, the learned Commissioner has concluded that the goods are not of Malaysian origin which is not correct - the adjudicating authority need to give a relook on the entire issue and pass a fresh speaking order. Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Nature of the battery - whether the batteries imported are as per IS-9128 specifications.
2. Country of origin - whether the goods were manufactured in China or Malaysia.

Nature of the Battery Issue:
The appellant imported Zinc Chloride Heavy Duty AA Battery, and a special investigation raised concerns about misdeclaration. Representative samples were sent for testing to verify compliance with IS-9128 specifications. The Customs department sought advice from BIS, but no confirmation was obtained. The adjudicating authority held the batteries as prohibited goods, demanding re-export and imposing fines. The appellant contested, arguing that without BIS confirmation, it cannot be conclusively determined if the batteries met IS-9128 standards. The Tribunal agreed, setting aside the order due to insufficient evidence.

Country of Origin Issue:
Regarding the country of origin, the manufacturer was identified as a Chinese company, but the goods were imported from Malaysia with "Made in Malaysia" stamps. The department presumed Chinese origin based on a website, but the High Commission's reply did not confirm this. The appellant argued that there was no conclusive evidence to confiscate the goods. The Tribunal found the reliance on the internet insufficient, emphasizing that documents and certificates indicated Malaysian origin. The order was set aside, directing a fresh review by the adjudicating authority to consider the discrepancies and issue a new decision.

This judgment highlights the importance of conclusive evidence in determining the nature of imported goods and their origin, emphasizing the need for proper verification and documentation to avoid erroneous confiscations and penalties.