9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (10) TMI 829 - AT - CustomsClassification of goods cleared from SEZ - plastic stickers - restricted goods or not - classifiable under 39 19 as declared by the appellant or classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 39 15 as plastic waste and scrap claimed by the Revenue? - enhancement of the value by the Customs Authority. Classification of goods - HELD THAT - From the test report, it is clear that the institute has clearly accepted the description declared as plastic stickers in the test result in Sr.No. 1(a) and also described the goods as cut pieces of clear film with paper sticker as per the said result since the goods was found as stickers, the goods should be classified in the form it was found i.e. sticker, which is correctly classifiable under 39 19 9010. In view of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS OSWAL AGRICOMM PVT. LTD. 2010 (7) TMI 712 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT as well as the clear observation of the Tribunal in the earlier remand order now the entire reliance can be made on the CIPET report only and no reliance can be made on customs laboratory report. Therefore, in view the above clear report of the CIPET the goods cleared from appellant s SEZ is a plastic sticker and correctly classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 39 19 9010. Whether the goods are undervalued or otherwise? - HELD THAT - There is no evidence was found to established that the appellant have undervalued the goods. Accordingly, the value declared by the appellant are correct being a transaction value and no addition can be made. The whole purpose of restriction is to avoid clearance of Plastic Waste and Scrap in the DTA as per the policy is that the hazardous goods should not be supplied in the DTA - In the present case the CIPET report clearly states that the goods i.e. Plastic Stickers are not hazardous in the nature. This also strengthen the case of the appellant that the goods is neither restricted nor prohibited. Hence, the entire case of the department fails. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, the goods in question are held to be plastic stickers and there is no undervaluation in respect of such goods. The impugned order is not sustainable. Hence, the same is set aside, appeals are allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of goods cleared from SEZ. 2. Valuation of the goods and enhancement of value by Customs Authority. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Classification of Goods The primary issue was whether the goods cleared from SEZ were "plastic stickers" classifiable under CTH 39199010 as declared by the appellant or "plastic waste and scrap" classifiable under CTH 39151909 as claimed by the Revenue. The Customs Laboratory, Kandla, and CIPET provided conflicting reports. The Customs Laboratory classified the goods as plastic waste and scrap, while CIPET classified them as plastic stickers. The Tribunal, referencing the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's judgment in the case of Oswal Agricomm Pvt. Ltd., emphasized that the CIPET report should be given primacy. The Tribunal concluded that the goods were plastic stickers and should be classified under CTH 39199010. Issue 2: Valuation of Goods Regarding the valuation, the Customs Authority had alleged undervaluation and enhanced the value based on the relationship between the SEZ unit and the buyer. The Tribunal found no evidence of undervaluation and determined that the SEZ unit and the buyer were not related persons in a manner that would affect the transaction value. The Tribunal held that the declared value was correct and no addition was warranted. Conclusion The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling that the goods were plastic stickers and not hazardous, thus not restricted or prohibited. The appeals were allowed, and the demand of duty and penalties were deemed unsustainable.
|
