2004 (1) TMI 144 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute regarding Customs duty demand for imported leather straps.
2. Confiscation of watch movements due to violation of marking conditions.
3. Classification dispute regarding watch movements.

Issue 1 - Customs Duty Demand:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Rochi Ram & Sons against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs confirming a Customs duty demand of Rs. 5,379 for 2,000 leather straps imported in excess of the declared quantity. The Appellants did not dispute this demand, and the Tribunal upheld the Customs duty demand.

Issue 2 - Confiscation of Watch Movements:
The dispute arose from the confiscation of watch movements imported by M/s. Rochi Ram & Sons under the grounds that the marking conditions specified in Notification No. 1/64-Cus were violated. The Appellants argued that the amendment to the notification deleting the contentious condition (v) was clarificatory and should be applied retrospectively. They relied on previous decisions and directives from the Board to support their contention. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellants, holding that the amendment was clarificatory and should be given retrospective effect, thereby setting aside the confiscation of the impugned goods.

Issue 3 - Classification Dispute:
A classification dispute arose regarding the watch movements, with the Customs Department seeking to question the classification post-clearance. The Appellants argued that the goods were not fully assembled and could not be classified under a specific heading. They contended that the burden to establish the correct classification was on the Department, which could not be met solely through statements. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellants, noting that the Department failed to provide corroborative evidence to support the classification change post-import, leading to the setting aside of the confiscation of the goods.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Customs duty demand for the leather straps, set aside the confiscation of the watch movements based on marking conditions, and also set aside the confiscation of the watch movements in the classification dispute. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.