2018 (3) TMI 563 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Aluminium lithographic sheets - whether classified under CTH 76061190 or under CTH 76020010? - Held that - there is no intention of the appellant to mis-declare the goods for the reason that the appellant under-took to mutilate the goods which were objected to be of prime nature by Revenue - the description of the goods declared in the Bills of entry were as per the documents received from the foreign supplier and there is no mis-declaration in the present case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under different tariff items.
2. Confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
3. Misdeclaration of goods in Bill of Entry.
4. Enhancement of value based on NIDB data.
5. Compliance with section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. The appeals involved similar facts related to the same appellant regarding the classification of goods imported. The goods declared as aluminum scrap were found to also contain aluminum lithographic sheets, which were considered prime in nature by the Revenue. The Revenue classified the sheets differently and enhanced their value based on NIDB data, leading to confiscation and imposition of fines. The appellant argued that there was no misdeclaration in the Bill of Entry as the description matched the documents received from the overseas supplier. The Tribunal found no intention of misdeclaration by the appellant and set aside the Revenue's classification, restoring the description and value declared in the Bills of Entry.

2. The Revenue had imposed redemption fines and penalties on the appellant based on the classification and valuation of the imported goods. The Commissioner(Appeals) had reduced the fines and penalties in the impugned Order-in-Appeal. However, the Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, set aside the impugned order and restored the description and value declared in the Bills of Entry. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to consequential relief.

3. The appellant had raised concerns regarding the misdeclaration of goods in the Bill of Entry and the subsequent actions taken by the Revenue. The appellant argued that they had filed the Bill of Entry based on information received from the overseas supplier and had offered to mutilate the disputed sheets at their own cost. The Tribunal noted that there was no misdeclaration in the present case and found no intention on the part of the appellant to misdeclare the goods. The Tribunal also referenced a previous case to highlight the requirement of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, in determining the assessable value of goods, which was not followed by the adjudicating authority in this case.

4. The enhancement of the value of the goods based on NIDB data was a significant issue raised by the appellant. The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority had not followed the requirements of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, in arriving at the assessable value. Citing a previous decision, the Tribunal emphasized the need to establish the actual price paid for the goods and the relationship between buyers and sellers in cases where the price is not the sole consideration. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and reinstated the value declared in the Bills of Entry, providing the appellant with consequential relief.

5. Compliance with section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962, was a crucial aspect of the Tribunal's analysis in this case. The Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority had not followed the requirements of section 14 in determining the assessable value of the imported goods. By referencing a previous decision and highlighting the need to consider the actual price paid for the goods, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the value declared in the Bills of Entry, granting the appellant consequential relief.