2018 (8) TMI 832 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of imported goods - Aluminium Scrap - It appeared to revenue that description stated in the Bill of Entry was Aluminum Scrap , whereas the goods imported contained blocks, plates and slips of Prime Aluminum and the said goods were not scrap - Held that - The description of the goods declared in the Bill of Entry were as per documents received from the foreign supplier and that due to said reason there was no mis-declaration in the present case are tenable - there was no intention of appellant to mis-declare the goods. The said goods were described as scrap in the Country from where they were exported and therefore, the classification of the goods claimed by the importer in the Bill of Entry is correct classification for the entire consignment - the finding of change in classification and mis-declaration held by Original Authority, does not sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Classification of imported goods
- Mis-declaration of goods
- Valuation of goods
- Appeal by importer-assessee
- Appeal by revenue

Classification of imported goods:
The case involved the import of Aluminium Scrap, which was subject to 100% examination upon arrival. The examination revealed that a portion of the goods was in the form of blocks, plates, and slips of prime Aluminum, not scrap as declared. The Commissioner reclassified the goods, enhanced their value, and increased the duty rate. The importer argued that the goods were described as scrap in the country of export and should be classified as such. The Tribunal agreed with the importer, stating that the goods were correctly classified as scrap in the Bill of Entry, and there was no mis-declaration or intention to deceive.

Mis-declaration of goods:
The revenue contended that the impugned order was cryptic and non-speaking, requesting a remand to the Original Adjudicating Authority. However, the Tribunal found that there was no mis-declaration by the importer, as the goods were accurately described in the documents from the foreign supplier. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods were treated as scrap in the country of export, supporting the importer's claim of correct classification.

Valuation of goods:
Regarding the valuation of the goods, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision and concluded that the transaction value in the Bill of Entry should be accepted. The Tribunal noted that the Original Authority did not reject the transaction value before enhancing it, further supporting the importer's position.

Appeal by importer-assessee:
The importer filed an appeal seeking to set aside the impugned Order-in-Original. The Tribunal granted the appeal, setting aside the order and accepting the importer's classification of the goods as scrap. The Tribunal found no grounds for mis-declaration and restored the value as claimed by the importer in the Bill of Entry.

Appeal by revenue:
The revenue filed an appeal stating that the impugned order was cryptic and non-speaking. However, since the Tribunal set aside the Order-in-Original based on the importer's arguments, the appeal by the revenue was rejected as infructuous.

This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD highlights the issues of classification, mis-declaration, valuation, and the outcomes of the appeals by both the importer-assessee and the revenue.