2023 (2) TMI 46 - AT - Customs

Jurisdiction - power of Deputy Commissioner to re-assess the goods u/s 17(5) after the goods have been cleared for home consumption - Rejection of self-assessment by the importer of the imported goods under CTH 20082000 and re-assessment under CTH 08119010 - Section 47 of the Customs Act, 1962 - whether the imported goods merit classification under CTH 20082000 or under CTH 08119010? HELD THAT - Once the assessment is completed both sides can file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Further, Revenue can also review any assessment including self-assessment if duties have not been levied, short levied not paid or short paid and serve a notice to the importer or exporter under Section 28 within one year or five years, as the case may be. Explanation (i) to Section 28 clarifies that the relevant date for calculating the period of one year and five years for issue of notice is the date on which proper officer makes an order clearing the goods for home consumption. Thus, once the assessment under Section 17 comes to an end by issue of an order clearing the goods for home consumption, the clock starts ticking for limitation to issue a demand under Section 28. In this case, the Deputy Commissioner has clearly erred in issuing an assessment order under Section 17(5) after the goods were already cleared for home consumption. He had no authority to issue such an order because he could assess a bill of entry only if the goods are still imported goods and are dutiable goods . Once an order permitting clearance of goods for home consumption is given, they cease to be imported goods under Section 2(25) and cease to be dutiable goods under Section 2(14) - If an error is noticed in the assessment including self-assessment, the option available to the importer is to file an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The Deputy Commissioner has clearly issued the assessment order without any authority and, therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in setting aside the assessment order. As the self assessment order by the Deputy Commissioner has been issued without any authority of law and has correctly been set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals), there is no need to go into the merits of the classification of the imported goods. The appeal filed by the appellant is rejected and the impugned order is upheld.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of re-assessment under Section 17(5) after goods cleared for home consumption.
2. Classification of imported goods under CTH 20082000 or CTH 08119010.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of re-assessment under Section 17(5) after goods cleared for home consumption:
The appellant imported canned pineapple slices and initially classified them under CTH 20082000, paying duties and receiving clearance for home consumption. Subsequently, a request for re-assessment under CTH 08119010 was made, leading to an assessment order by the Deputy Commissioner after more than 8 months. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside this assessment, citing that re-assessment under Section 17(5) after goods cleared for home consumption is not permissible. The judgment referred to the Supreme Court's decision in ITC Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, emphasizing that self-assessment is final upon payment of duty and goods clearance, and any alterations must be through appeal proceedings, not re-assessment. The Deputy Commissioner's re-assessment post-clearance was deemed unauthorized, leading to the appeal rejection.

Issue 2: Classification of imported goods under CTH 20082000 or CTH 08119010:
The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the classification of "canned pineapple slices" under CTH 20082000 without detailed findings. However, the Tribunal did not delve into the classification merits due to the unauthorized re-assessment issue. The judgment highlighted the process of self-assessment by importers, allowing for officer re-assessment based on errors, emphasizing the need for a speaking order in such cases. The judgment clarified that once goods are cleared for home consumption, no further assessment is permissible, and appeals can be made by both parties post-assessment completion. The Customs EDI system's limitations on re-assessment after goods clearance were also underscored.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to set aside the unauthorized re-assessment. The judgment emphasized the legal boundaries of re-assessment post-goods clearance for home consumption and the appeal process for classification disputes, ensuring compliance with Customs Act provisions and judicial precedents.