2018 (9) TMI 1157 - AT - Customs

Penalty u/s 114A of CA - Classification of imported goods, binders with different nomenclatures - Bonafide classification - the appellant had paid the duty and interest much before the issuance of SCN - Held that - When a bona fide mistake was admitted right at the initial stage, we have to only hold that it was without any intention of defrauding the Revenue and therefore, we are of the view that no penalty is exigible. Reduction in quantum of penalty - Held that - When the lower appellate authority grants leniency to an extent of 75%, we see no reason not to extend it to 100% when clearly the Revenue is not in appeal. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Customs Act, 1975; Allegation of misclassification by Revenue; Applicability of Notification No. 21/2002 - Cus. dt. 01.03.2002; Charge of interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962; Penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act.

Analysis:

Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellant imported binders with different nomenclatures and classified them under 39039090. Revenue alleged misclassification, proposing reclassification under 40021100 of the Customs Act, 1975. The appellant explained the basis of classification citing changes in supplier descriptions and consultations with CHA. The Original Authority noted the details provided by the appellant.

Charge of Interest and Penalty:
The Additional Commissioner confirmed the propositions in the Show Cause Notice, charging interest under Section 28AB and imposing a penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the findings but reduced the penalty to 25% of the duty. The appellant appealed against this order.

Appellant's Arguments:
The appellant, engaged in paper manufacturing, imported binders for coating purposes. A new binder, Styrene Butadiene Copolymer DEB-3111, was classified under 39039090 due to the term 'copolymer.' The appellant contended that 'copolymer' led to confusion, as it was associated with chapter 39 goods. The appellant emphasized the bona fide nature of the classification and early payment of duty and interest.

Revenue's Position:
The Department Representative supported the lower authorities' findings, arguing against the appellant's plea to delete the penalty.

Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's bona fide mistake in classification based on the term 'copolymer.' It noted that the Revenue did not dispute the association of 'copolymer' with chapter 39 goods. Considering the absence of fraudulent intent, the Tribunal held that no penalty was warranted. The Tribunal observed that the lower appellate authority had already reduced the penalty by 75% due to the appellant's bona fides. As the Revenue did not appeal this decision, the Tribunal set aside the penalty entirely, emphasizing the importance of bona fides.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, emphasizing the absence of fraudulent intent in the appellant's classification error. By setting aside the penalty, the Tribunal recognized the appellant's genuine mistake and early compliance with duty payment.