2018 (9) TMI 1388 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods - stamping foil - Appellant contends that the first appellate authority had failed to take into consideration various submissions made by them - Held that - The appellant has not appreciated that the findings in the impugned order cover all the grounds pleaded then by the appellant - The appellant is not in a position to controvert the visual evidence of the impugned goods being imported with the labels stamping foil as unearthed during examination. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975; Alteration of classification by Deputy Chief Chemist; Confiscation and redemption of goods; Penalty under Customs Act, 1962; Failure of first appellate authority to consider submissions; Challenge to reliance on Deputy Chief Chemist's report; Composition of imported material; Visual evidence of imported goods.

Classification of Imported Goods:
M/s Sahiba Fabrics Ltd imported goods claiming classification under heading no. 7607 2090 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. However, upon examination and sample drawal, the classification was altered to heading no. 3212 1000 as 'stamping foil' by the Deputy Chief Chemist. The appellant contended that the foil imported was made of aluminum layered by polyester, supporting their original declaration. The Tribunal noted that the impugned imports did not match the characteristics of 'aluminum foils' as they consisted of a coating of aluminum, not aluminum plates, as evidenced by labels found during examination.

Confiscation and Penalty:
The original authority altered the assessment, confiscated the goods, and allowed redemption on payment of a specified amount. Additionally, a penalty of &8377; 6,00,000/- was imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The first appellate authority upheld these decisions, leading to the appeal.

Failure of First Appellate Authority:
The appellant argued that the first appellate authority failed to consider their submissions adequately. They challenged the reliance on the Deputy Chief Chemist's report and advised classification under a different chapter of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. However, the Tribunal found that the impugned order covered all grounds raised by the appellant, and the conclusions drawn were valid based on the evidence presented.

Visual Evidence and Conclusion:
The Tribunal, upon reviewing the impugned order, found no flaw in the conclusions drawn. The presence of visual evidence showing the imported goods labeled as 'stamping foil' during examination further supported the altered classification. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal.

This judgment highlights the importance of accurate classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act, the authority's power to alter classifications based on examination results, and the consequences of non-compliance, including confiscation, redemption, and penalties. It also emphasizes the need for thorough consideration of submissions by appellate authorities and the significance of visual evidence in determining the nature of imported goods.