2024 (6) TMI 400 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported consignments under different tariff headings - to be classified under CTH 5903 or under CTH 5407? - interest and penalty - penalty on the Director of the firm. Classification of imported consignments - HELD THAT - In respect of 181 consignments it is found that the issue was before this Bench in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata vs. M/s. Umbar Marketing Private Limited, 2023 (6) TMI 421 - CESTAT KOLKATA . This Bench has held ' the goods are not classifiable under CTH 54071094 as proposed by the Appellant.' Interest and penalty - HELD THAT - There is no mis-classification or mis-declaration on the part of the Appellant. They have claimed the consignment to be under CTH 5707 and they have paid the applicable Customs duty. The Show Cause Notice was in error by taking the view that all the 182 consignments were classified by the appellant under CTH 5903. Since the duty has already been correctly discharged by the Appellant under the heading 5407, we hold that the impugned order is required to be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside to the extent that it confirms the duty and interest and penalty thereon in respect of this one consignment. The Appeal filed by the importer is allowed. Penalty imposed on the Director - HELD THAT - There is no mis-declaration or mis-classification in respect of 1 consignment, the penalty imposed on the Director is set aside. The Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed - Appeals filed by the importer and the Director are allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported consignments under different tariff headings, re-classification by Revenue, confirmation of demand, penalty imposed on the Director of the firm.

Analysis:

1. Classification of Consignments:
The Appellant imported 182 consignments, with 181 classified under CTH 5903 and 1 under 54.07. Revenue issued a Show Cause Notice seeking to classify all consignments under 54.07 for umbrella manufacture. Commissioner upheld 5903 classification for 181 consignments and demanded re-classification for 1 consignment. The Adjudicating authority imposed a penalty on the Director.

2. Revenue's Appeal:
The Revenue sought re-classification of all consignments under 5407, but Tribunal had previously dismissed a similar appeal. The Ld. AR argued that end-use cannot solely determine classification. The issue was compared to a previous case where demands were dropped post-testing.

3. Importer's Appeal:
The importer argued that the issue was settled in a previous case where demands were dropped post-testing. No further appeal was filed, indicating finality. For 181 consignments, the importer relied on the Tribunal's decision and sought dismissal of Revenue's appeal.

4. Director's Penalty:
As no mis-declaration or mis-classification was found for the 1 consignment, the penalty on the Director was set aside. The Tribunal allowed the importer's appeal for the 1 consignment, holding the impugned order needed to be set aside.

5. Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, allowed the importer's appeal for the 1 consignment, and set aside the penalty on the Director. The decision was based on the nature of materials used, previous case law, and correct discharge of duties by the importer.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of 181 consignments under CTH 5903, dismissed the Revenue's appeal, allowed the importer's appeal for the 1 consignment, and set aside the penalty on the Director due to no mis-declaration. The decision was based on the nature of materials, testing reports, and previous case law, ensuring correct classification and duty payment.