2019 (6) TMI 969 - AT - Customs

Finalization of provisional assessment - classification of goods - refrigerator - benefit of N/N. 85/2004-Cus., dated 31st August, 2004 - primary claim of the appellant is that the declared classification was the same as the code in the certificate of origin issued by the competent authority in the country of export and that it is not within the competence of the assessing officer to alter such classification. HELD THAT - The imported goods, though claimed to be refrigerators , were found to be combined refrigerator freezer and, hence, neither covered by the claimed heading nor eligible for the claimed exemption. It is admitted by the appellant that the declaration was made on the basis of the code in certificate of origin ; Section 12 of Customs Act, 1962 requires that the rate of duty be determined in accordance with Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and a code in a certificate cannot be the sole basis for such determination. No other detriment has been visited upon the appellant. The appellant has discharged the duty liability, as revised in the finalised assessment, and has not mounted a serious challenge to the findings of the lower authorities. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for claiming benefit of a notification. Competence of assessing officer to alter classification based on the certificate of origin. Eligibility for claimed exemption based on the classification of goods.

Classification of Imported Goods:
The judgment pertains to the finalization of 18 bills of entry for imported goods, specifically 'refrigerators,' by M/s. Sharp India Ltd. The appellant claimed classification under Heading No. 8418 21 00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, to avail benefits under Notification No. 85/2004-Cus. However, the original authority reclassified the goods under Heading No. 8418 10 90, leading to a denial of the concession and ordering recovery of the differential duty. The Tribunal found that the imported goods were actually 'combined refrigerator freezer,' not falling under the claimed heading or eligible for the exemption. The appellant's declaration based on the code in the certificate of origin was deemed insufficient as the duty rate determination must align with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and not solely on a certificate code.

Competence of Assessing Officer:
The appellant argued that the classification declared, matching the code in the certificate of origin, should not be altered by the assessing officer. However, the Tribunal held that the Customs Act, 1962 mandates duty determination in accordance with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, making the certificate code inadequate for such determination. Despite the appellant's compliance with the revised duty assessment and lack of substantial challenge to the lower authorities' findings, the Tribunal concluded that the assessing officer was competent to reclassify the goods based on the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

Eligibility for Claimed Exemption:
The appellant's primary contention was the eligibility for the claimed exemption based on the classification of the imported goods. While the appellant maintained that the goods were 'refrigerators,' the Tribunal's scrutiny revealed them to be 'combined refrigerator freezer,' rendering them ineligible for the claimed heading and exemption. The appellant's reliance on the certificate of origin code was deemed insufficient, emphasizing the necessity of aligning the classification with the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for duty determination. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal, citing no substantial grounds to challenge the final assessment and classification of the imported goods.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues surrounding the classification of imported goods, the competence of the assessing officer to alter classifications, and the eligibility for claimed exemptions under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, as addressed by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI.