9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (1) TMI 597 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - clarion brand speakers - whether classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading No. 851822/851829 or under under Chapter Heading 8519/8527? - benefit of N/N. 49/2008-CX(NT) Dated 24.12.2008 at Sl. No. 90, 94 and 96 - HELD THAT - The issue in dispute is in these appeals are regarding classification of the goods imported by the Appellant No. 1 which has been described has Multi Media Speaker classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading No. 8518200 dated 16.04.2013 and thereafter under Heading 85198990, 8527990 and 85272900. The DRI has, however, not accepted the classification declared by the Appellant and came to the conclusion that the imported goods are rightly classified under Chapter Heading 85198100 leviable to CVD in terms of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 of MRP/RSP basis that attracted the provisions of legal methodology Act, 2009. The issue regarding classification of Multi Medial Speaker stands decided in case of COMMR. OF CUSTOMS (PORT) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. SANTOSH RADIO PRODUCTS 2018 (5) TMI 1956 - CESTAT KOLKATA where it was held that Similar goods have been classified as sought by the respondent under 8518 in the case of LOGIC INDIA TRADING CO VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS 2016 (3) TMI 5 - CESTAT BANGALORE . The classification has been correctly made by the Appellant under Heading 851822 and 851829 - There is no question of invocation of provisions of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act for levy of CVD on the basis of MRP/RSP, accordingly, the impugned order filed by the Appellant importer is set aside - penalty also do not sustain. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975; Liability of customs duty, interest, and penalties on importer and clearing agent; Applicability of Central Excise Act, 1944 for levy of CVD based on MRP/RSP; Challenge against impugned order by Appellants.
In this case, the appeals arose from an Order by the Commissioner of Customs confirming the demand of customs duty, interest, and penalties on the Appellant importer and the clearing agent. The dispute centered around the classification of imported 'clarion brand' speakers by the Appellant under Customs Tariff Heading No. 851822/851829, which the Department contended should be classified under Chapter Heading 8519/8527. The Department proposed re-determination of assessable value for past consignments and live consignments, leading to the issuance of a show cause notice and the impugned order. The Appellants challenged this decision. The primary issue revolved around the classification of the audio/music system with inbuilt USB/SD/FM/MP3 features. The Department argued that the speakers should be classified under Chapter Heading 8519/8527 instead of 851822/851929. Despite submissions by the Appellant and previous Tribunal orders on the classification of multimedia speakers, the adjudicating authority upheld the demand. The Appellant No. 2, as the Proprietor of the Appellant No. 1, and Appellant No. 3, a Customs House Agent of the Appellant importer, were penalized for alleged omissions and commissions. The Appellant argued that the issue of classification was settled by a previous Tribunal decision, Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata vs. Santosh Radio Product. They contended that penalties imposed on the other Appellants were not sustainable based on this precedent. After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal deliberated on the classification issue. The Department insisted on classifying the goods under Chapter Heading 85198100 for levy of CVD based on MRP/RSP. However, the Tribunal referred to the Santosh Radio Product case and upheld the classification of the goods as Multi Media Speaker under Heading 851822 and 851829, setting aside the impugned order. Given the correct classification of the goods, the Tribunal ruled out the levy of penalties on the other Appellants. Consequently, the Appeals were allowed with any consequential benefits as per law. The judgment was pronounced on 3rd January 2020.
|
