2024 (6) TMI 200 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods imported by the appellant - Pre-Sensitized Positive Offset Aluminum plates (plate thickness 0.28 mm, plate coating UV-CTCP PINK, size 441 x 501 mm) - demand of anti-dumping duty - country of origin was mis-declared as Taiwan when the goods were imported from China - imposition of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 114AA of the Customs Act and Section 112A of the Customs Act - confiscation and imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act. Classification of goods - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the goods were described as Pre-Sensitized Positive Offset Aluminum Plates in the import documents. The Onus of establishing that the said goods are mis-declared was on revenue. If the goods are indeed Pre-Sensitized Positive Offset Aluminum Plates then they would be covered by the anti-dumping duty Notification no. 25/2014 and if the same are Digital offset printing plates then they would be covered under Notification no.51/2012. But if the both the cases anti-dumping duty is leviable however at different ways. It is apparent that lithography plates are plain plates which are capable of transferring images from its surface as a printing material. The distinction made out in the two anti-dumping Notification is dependent on the ability to make the images on the plate by Digital means and otherwise. Both the digital and Pre-Sensitized plates are lithographic plates. Thus, the classification of both the plates remains the same. In these circumstances merely coming to the conclusion that Digital plates are classifiable under heading 8442.5020 is not sufficient or hold that the goods are digital offset printing plates because even Pre-Sensitized Offset Plates are also classifiable under the same sub heading 8442.5020 Levy of anti-dumping duty - confiscation - redemption fine - HELD THAT - The revenue has failed to establish that the goods are in the nature of digital offset printing plates as nothing in para 23.1 of the order in original, relied by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order, talks about any digital means of creating image. In these circumstances, the appellant should be entitled to the benefit of notification no. 25/2014-Customs (ADD) dated 09.06.2014. The anti-dumping duty demanded and the penalties levied may therefore be revised accordingly, the goods are liable to confiscation as the country of origin was mis-declared and therefore confiscation and imposition of redemption fine is upheld the demand of duty and penalty may be revised by allowing benefit of Notification no. 25/2014. Imposition of penalties u/s 114A, 114AA, and 112A of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - The penalty under Section 114A is clearly leviable. The appellants have stated that the appellant had himself come forward to convey all facts to the department that the goods are of Chinese origin therefore penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act should not be leviable. The appellant had not voluntarily come forward but came to declare the correct position only after the investigation started. Thus, penalty under Section 114AA is also leviable. However, considered the facts that the appellants are entitled to benefit of Notification no. 25/2014-Customs (ADD) dated 09.06.2014 the duty and the quantum of penalty may be revised accordingly. Consequently, the penalties imposed on Shri Dhirubhai Patel was also be revised. Appeal is therefore allowed by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods.
2. Demand of anti-dumping duty.
3. Imposition of penalties under Section 114A, 114AA, and 112A of the Customs Act.
4. Confiscation and imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellant, D D Marketing, imported goods described as "Pre-Sensitized Positive Offset Aluminum Plates" and classified them under CTH 84425010. The revenue contended that the goods were "Digital Offset Printing Plates" and thus classified under heading 8442.5020, thereby covered by Notification no. 51/2012-Customs (ADD).

The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the goods were indeed "Pre-Sensitized Positive Offset Aluminum Plates," supported by test results from a government-accredited laboratory, Metalab. However, the adjudicating authority rejected this on the grounds that the Chartered Engineer was not empanelled with Customs authorities at Mudra. The tribunal found that the revenue failed to establish that the goods were "Digital Offset Printing Plates" as nothing in the relied para 23.1 of the order-in-original indicated the use of digital means for creating images. Therefore, the appellant should be entitled to the benefit of Notification no. 25/2014-Customs (ADD).

2. Demand of Anti-Dumping Duty:
The goods attract anti-dumping duty under different notifications based on their classification. If classified as "Pre-Sensitized Positive Offset Aluminum Plates," they fall under Notification no. 25/2014-Customs (ADD). If classified as "Digital Offset Printing Plates," they fall under Notification no. 51/2012-Customs (ADD). The tribunal concluded that the goods were "Pre-Sensitized Positive Offset Aluminum Plates" and thus subject to anti-dumping duty as per Notification no. 25/2014-Customs (ADD).

3. Imposition of Penalties:
The appellant argued that penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act could only be invoked in cases of collusion, willful mis-statement, or suppression of facts, which were not present in this case. However, the tribunal found that there was a clear mis-declaration of the country of origin with the intent to evade anti-dumping duty, justifying the imposition of penalties under Section 114A and 114AA. The appellant's voluntary disclosure after the investigation started did not mitigate the penalties.

4. Confiscation and Imposition of Redemption Fine:
The tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and the imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act due to the mis-declaration of the country of origin. The goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) as the country of origin was mis-declared.

Conclusion:
The tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority with directions to revise the demand of duty and penalties by allowing the benefit of Notification no. 25/2014-Customs (ADD). The confiscation and imposition of redemption fine were upheld due to the mis-declaration of the country of origin. The penalties under Section 114A and 114AA were also upheld, considering the appellant's intent to evade duty. The order was pronounced in open court on 04.06.2024.