2021 (8) TMI 1214 - AT - Customs

Mis-classification of imported goods - printed thermal paper rolls - to be classified under CTH 4911 9990 or not? - Country of Origin Certificate - benefit of exemption as per N/N. 26/2000-Cus. - Show Cause Notice in this case has been issued by the Additional Director General (ADG) of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) - Proper officer or not - HELD THAT - The issue on merits has been decided in the appellant's own case in M/S. HI-TEC CORPORATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI-II 2017 (11) TMI 1437 - CESTAT CHENNAI passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva. The classification adopted by the appellant under CTH 4911 9990 has been accepted by the Department and the proceedings initiated vide the Show Cause Notice have been dropped. The appellant filed an RTI application seeking information as to whether any appeal has been filed by the Department against such Order-in-Original or whether the same has been accepted by the Department. It is seen that the Department has accepted the decision passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva holding that the subject goods are to be classified under CTH 4911 9990. When this classification has been accepted, the Department cannot allege mis-classification for imports of the same goods made during the subsequent period. In POPULAR CARBONIC PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CHENNAI-I COMMISSIONERATE 2021 (8) TMI 240 - CESTAT CHENNAI , the Tribunal held that when the issue has been decided and has attained finality, the Department cannot be permitted to take a different stand for subsequent periods. A similar view was taken in ROSMERTA TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CE ST, LTU DELHI 2019 (11) TMI 1573 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH . The correct classification of the impugned goods would be under CTH 4911 9990, as contended by the appellant - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under CTH 4811 9099 vs. CTH 4911 9990, Benefit of Notification No. 26/2000-Cus., Jurisdiction of Show Cause Notice

Classification Issue:
The Tribunal addressed the issue of the correct classification of imported goods under CTH 4811 9099 versus CTH 4911 9990. The appellant argued that the goods should be classified under CTH 4911 9990 to claim full exemption from Basic Customs Duty under Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. The appellant's classification was based on the origin of the goods and previous acceptance of the classification by the Department in a prior order. The Tribunal examined the details of the goods, the processing involved after import, and the relevant legal provisions. After considering the arguments and precedents cited by the appellant, the Tribunal held in favor of the appellant, concluding that the correct classification of the goods would be under CTH 4911 9990.

Benefit of Notification No. 26/2000-Cus.:
The appellant sought the benefit of full exemption from Basic Customs Duty under Notification No. 26/2000-Cus. based on the classification of the imported goods. The Tribunal analyzed the applicability of the notification in conjunction with the correct classification of the goods under CTH 4911 9990. It considered the origin of the goods, the processing undertaken after import, and the exemption claimed by the appellant. Ultimately, the Tribunal's decision on the classification issue directly impacted the appellant's eligibility for the benefit under the notification, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellant.

Jurisdiction of Show Cause Notice Issue:
The appellant raised a technical issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Show Cause Notice issued by the Additional Director General (ADG) of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the ADG, DRI was not the proper officer for issuing the notice, citing legal precedents and court decisions supporting this contention. The Tribunal examined the validity of the Show Cause Notice in light of the legal provisions and relevant judicial pronouncements. Relying on the decisions of higher courts and a previous Tribunal ruling, the Tribunal concluded that the Show Cause Notice issued by the ADG, DRI was without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order based on this technical issue raised by the appellant.

In summary, the Tribunal's judgment addressed the classification of imported goods, the eligibility for exemption under a specific notification, and the jurisdictional validity of the Show Cause Notice. The appellant's arguments regarding the classification and benefit under the notification were upheld by the Tribunal, leading to a favorable outcome. Additionally, the technical issue raised by the appellant concerning the jurisdiction of the Show Cause Notice was deemed valid, resulting in the setting aside of the impugned order.