9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (4) TMI 481 - AT - CustomsClassification - Imported goods from Korea - gold coins (other than legal tenders) - fall under CTH 7114 1910 as claimed by the appellant Or under CTH 7118 9000 as claimed by the department - exemption from payment of Customs duty - rejection of exemption under notification dated 31.12.2009, as amended by notification dated 31.12.2016 - recovery of differential duty with interest - Whether the imported gold coins can be called as the Prohibited Goods merely for want of letter issued by Reserve Bank of India - HELD THAT - The goods in question apparently and admittedly are gold coins. As the terms suggest these are the articles crafted out of precious metal hence appears to be subject matter of CTH 7114. Simultaneously these articles specifically are coins and coins are precisely mentioned under CTH 7118. Thus it becomes the point of interpretation as to which CTH entry suits the impugned goods more. Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong vs. Wood Craft Products Ltd. 1995 (3) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT and also in a later decision in the case of L.M.L Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs 2010 (9) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT has held that for resolving any dispute relating to tariff classification, a safe guide is the internationally accepted nomenclature emerging from HSN. Entry at CTH 7114 covers all articles of Gold. The word article has also not been defined under any of the Notes to Chapter 71. Again the dictionary meaning has to be relied upon. As per Oxford Dictionary article is a particular item or object and include household articles. Cambridge Dictionary also define article to mean as an object, a particular thing specially one i.e. one of several things of a similar type or a thing similarly placed. As per Merriam Webster dictionary article is a thing or a person of a particular and distinctive kind of class. Thus, it becomes clear that goods in question, (gold coins) being an object/ a thing of particular kind, hence are nothing but the articles. Keeping in view the entire discussion about Chapter Notes, explanatory notes, the General Rules of Interpretation and the description of respective entries under CTH 7114 and 7118, it becomes clear that gold coins are such articles of gold which are in the form of coin, but being the coins of non legal tender, these cannot be covered under CTH 7018. These being articles of precious metals are therefore held to be covered under CTH 7114. This issue is otherwise no more res-integra as has been decided by this Tribunal s Principle Bench in the case of Abans Jewels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, ACC (Import) 2022 (4) TMI 1370 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and also by the Regional Bench of Hyderabad as well as of Bangalore in the case of Sri Exports 2019 (5) TMI 82 - CESTAT BANGALORE . Accordingly, the above formulated question No. 1 stands decided in favour of the importer and against the Department. As far as goods imported and classified under CTH 7114 1910 are concerned, in terms of the Schedule I of the ITC (HS), the same were freely importable without any restrictions prior to the issuance of the Notification No. 25/2017 dated 25.08.2017. Vide the said Import Policy, the Articles of gold were allowed to be imported free whereas coins of any metal other than gold, though were freely importable but were subject to RBI regulations. Thus Import Policy of 2017 clarifies that since the goods in question were though coins but of gold, no prohibition is at all applicable upon these coins which were merely articles of gold. Both these documents are sufficient to hold that gold coins in question were not restricted . Only such coins as are classified under CTH 7118 were restricted. As already held above that impugned gold coins are classified under CTH 7114 the RBI can issue regulations u/s 58 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 or section 47 of the foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999. The exemption as availed by the appellant under Notification No. 152/2009-Customs dated 31.12.2009 as amended by Notification No. 66/2016 Cus. dated 31.12.2016, is held to be very much available to the appellant. We are of the opinion that Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly relied upon the decision of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Khandwala Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 2019 (11) TMI 740 - DELHI HIGH COURT . Accordingly we hold that Adjudicating Authority below has wrongly interpreted the said decision. In-fact has wrongly applied the same to the facts of the present case despite that the facts are not identical. Thus both these questions (No. 2 3) also stands decided in favour of appellant holding that the gold coins imported by appellant are not the restricted goods and that the appellant is entitled for the exemption from payment of customs duty in terms of Notification No.66/2016-Cus dated 31.12.2016.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported gold coins under CTH 7114 1910 or CTH 7118 9000. 2. Eligibility for Customs duty exemption under Notification No. 152/2009-Customs as amended. 3. Determination of whether the imported gold coins are 'Prohibited Goods' due to lack of RBI authorization. Summary: Issue 1: Classification of Imported Gold Coins The Tribunal examined the classification of gold coins imported by the appellant. The appellant argued that the gold coins should be classified under CTH 7114, which covers articles of goldsmiths or silversmiths wares and parts thereof, of precious metal. The department, however, contended that the coins should fall under CTH 7118, which includes coins of any material issued under government control for use as legal tender. The Tribunal referred to the Customs Tariff Harmonized System of Nomenclature (CTH) and explanatory notes, concluding that the gold coins, being non-legal tender, do not fall under CTH 7118 but rather under CTH 7114, as they are articles of gold. The Tribunal cited previous decisions supporting this classification. Issue 2: Eligibility for Customs Duty Exemption The Tribunal noted that the gold coins were imported from Korea, and under the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) between India and Korea, such imports should not face non-tariff barriers. The Tribunal observed that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) had removed the prohibition on the import of gold coins and medallions in 2015, and the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-20 allowed the import of such goods freely. The Tribunal found that the appellant met the conditions for exemption under Notification No. 152/2009-Customs as amended, as the goods originated from Korea. Therefore, the appellant was entitled to the Customs duty exemption. Issue 3: Determination of 'Prohibited Goods' The Tribunal examined whether the imported gold coins could be considered 'Prohibited Goods' due to the lack of an RBI authorization letter. It was found that the RBI and DGFT guidelines did not constitute formal regulations under the Reserve Bank of India Act or the Foreign Exchange Management Act. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions, including M/s. Abans Jewels Pvt. Ltd., which held that gold coins classified under CTH 7114 were not restricted or prohibited. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the gold coins were not prohibited goods and that the appellant was entitled to the exemption from Customs duty. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant on all issues. The appeal was allowed, and the classification under CTH 7114 was upheld, granting the appellant eligibility for the Customs duty exemption and confirming that the imported gold coins were not prohibited goods. [Pronounced in the open Court on 08.04.2024]
|
