9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 46 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - AJI-NO-MOTO - rightly classifiable under CTH 2106 9060 or under CTH 3824 9900? - denial of benefit of N/N. 46/2011 dated 1.6.2011 - demand of differential duty alongwith interest and penalty - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT - It should however be understood that a decision is an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically flows from the various observations made in the judgment. In the case of INDO NISSIN FOODS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI 2001 (5) TMI 378 - CEGAT, CHENNAI , the item imported was flavour enhancers/ potentiators. The issue was whether the goods required a license to be cleared. The Appellant had in the Bill of Entry declared the item to be food additives and paid customs duty under Chapter 3823.00. Therefore, there was no challenge to the classification made in the Bill of Entry. Hence the matter is distinguished. Sine the correct classification of the goods is under CTH 2106 9060 the goods are not eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 499(I) of Notification No. 46/2011 and the impugned order is upheld in this regard. Invocation of the extended period - imposition of penalty - HELD THAT - It is seen that the impugned goods were imported by filing 68 bills of entry, from 1-12-2017 to 29-10-2022 by declaring them as Ajitide I G . It is the Revenues case that by making an incomplete declaration of the goods (suppression of facts) and mis-classifying them has lead to evasion of duty and hence the extended period of time as per section 28(4) of the Customs Act 1962 is rightly invokable and the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) (o) ibid and the importer is also liable for a penalty. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NORTHERN PLASTIC LTD. VERSUS COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE 1998 (7) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT has held that merely claiming the benefit of exemption or a particular classification under the bill of entry does not amount to mis-declaration or suppression of facts. Something more is required. Although the judgment was pronounced before the 'Self-Assessment' system has been introduced in respect of Customs clearance of imported goods under Section 17 of Customs Act,1962, with effect from 8-4-2O11, we find that earlier consignments bearing the same description, same classification were cleared by the department, vide 68 Bills of Entry, from 1-12-2017 to 29-10-2022. In the circumstances it cannot prima facie be said that there was an intention on the part of the appellant to mis-declare the goods. Nor has Revenue brought in some additional facts to prove its case of suppression . The goods are basically a mixture of chemicals used in the food industry and an arguable case has been made out by the Appellant, which is not a mere excuse to escape payment of duty. Hence the demand will only survive for the normal period and no penalty or fine is imposable. The impugned order is upheld including the denial of the claim for exemption from duty but with the modification that the demand is limited to the normal period along with applicable interest. The fine and penalty imposed are set aside - Appeal disposed off.
Issues Involved: Classification of imported goods, eligibility for customs duty exemption, invocation of extended period for demand, and imposition of penalty and fine.
Summary: 1. Classification of Imported Goods: The main dispute centered on whether the imported product "Ajitide" should be classified under CTH 3824 9900 as a miscellaneous chemical product or under CTH 2106 9060 as a food flavoring material. The appellant argued that Ajitide is a chemical mixture not meant for direct human consumption and should be classified under CTH 3824 9900. The Revenue contended that Ajitide is a flavoring material used in food preparation, thus classifiable under CTH 2106 9060. The Tribunal concluded that Ajitide, which enhances the umami taste and flavor of food, is more appropriately classified under CTH 2106 9060 as a food flavoring material. 2. Eligibility for Customs Duty Exemption: The appellant claimed a basic customs duty exemption u/s Notification No. 46/2011. Since the Tribunal upheld the classification of Ajitide under CTH 2106 9060, the goods were found ineligible for the exemption under the said notification. 3. Invocation of Extended Period for Demand: The Revenue invoked the extended period u/s 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging suppression of facts by the appellant. The Tribunal noted that previous consignments were cleared under the same classification without objection from the customs department. It was held that mere claiming of exemption or a particular classification does not amount to suppression. Therefore, the demand was limited to the normal period, and the extended period was not justified. 4. Imposition of Penalty and Fine: The Tribunal found that the appellant's actions did not amount to suppression or mis-declaration warranting a penalty. Consequently, the penalty and fine imposed under sec. 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, were set aside. It was also noted that no redemption fine could be imposed once the goods were cleared by Customs. Conclusion: The impugned order was upheld regarding the denial of the claim for exemption from duty. However, the demand was limited to the normal period along with applicable interest, and the penalty and fine were set aside. The appellant was granted consequential relief as per law. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
|
