2019 (4) TMI 647 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of imported goods - import of glass microspheres in the guise of glass beads - suppression or wilful mis-representation - extended period of limitation - Held that - The glass and glassware includes glass beads, glass microspheres etc. and these have been grouped as glass beads , glass microspheres and others indicating these to distinct products - It is clear from the structure of the relevant chapter in the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 that the imported goods must squarely fall under heading no. 70182000. Extended period of limitation - Held that - It is apparent that the same documents, viz. the certificate of origin and the certificate of analysis, based on which the impugned order has reclassified the goods, were available with the assessing officer at the time of import. The distinct and different classification adopted in Jawaharlal Nehru Custom House, Nhava Sheva is also a clear pointer to the confusion in classification that may absolve the importers of deliberate intent to misdeclare. It is also apparent that the consequence of differential levy, being restricted to additional duties of customs, that no particular gain would have accrued to the appellant by misdeclaring the goods - the extended period under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be invoked for demand of duty. Penalties - Held that - As the demand is restricted to normal period of limitation, and in view of the specific finding of lack of deliberate misclassification, there is no scope for invoking penalties under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 or under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods as 'glass beads' or 'glass microspheres'; Invocation of extended period for demand of duty; Applicability of penalties under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 and section 112 of Customs Act, 1962.

Classification of Imported Goods:
The case involved appeals arising from orders related to the import of goods declared as 'glass beads' but later alleged to be 'glass microspheres'. The primary argument was against invoking the extended period due to lack of evidence supporting suppression or wilful misrepresentation. The appellant contended that full disclosure was made, and goods were released after test reports confirmed the declaration. The customs authorities themselves directed a change in classification, indicating uncertainty. The appellant also argued that the reclassification only led to entitlement to CENVAT credit, not duty evasion. The Tribunal analyzed the differences between 'glass beads' and 'glass microspheres' based on their characteristics and concluded that the imported goods fell under heading no. 70182000.

Invocation of Extended Period for Demand of Duty:
The authorized representative argued that the issue of limitation was adequately addressed by the lower authority, citing evidence like circulars, literature, and analysis reports to support the intention of misclassification. The Explanatory Notes in the Harmonised System of Nomenclature were referred to, emphasizing the distinct nature of 'glass microspheres' from 'glass beads'. However, the Tribunal noted that the same documents used for reclassification were available at the time of import, and the confusion in classification at the customs house indicated no deliberate misdeclaration. It was concluded that the extended period under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 could not be invoked for demanding duty.

Applicability of Penalties:
During the proceedings, the appellants paid the due duty amounts, and no further liabilities were outstanding. Due to the specific finding of lack of deliberate misclassification, penalties under section 114A and section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 were deemed inapplicable. The impugned order was modified to restrict the demand to duty and interest for the normal period of limitation, with all penalties set aside.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the lack of evidence for deliberate misrepresentation and the absence of gains from misclassification. The demand for duty was restricted to the normal period of limitation, and penalties were set aside based on the specific findings of the case.