9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (4) TMI 569 - AT - CustomsClassification of goods claiming of exemption - The respondents had claimed classification of the goods under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8901 10 40 and had claimed exemption 21/2002-Cus S. No.352. During the pendency of the investigation, the importer gave up the claim for classification under CTI 8901 10 40 and claimed classification under CTI 8905 9090 along with benefit of Notification No. 21/02-Cus. Sl. No. 353. The importer was provisionally allowed to clear the goods as per the said classification. After provisional release of the goods, the Department made a two-fold case against the respondent on the following issues namely, (i) the respondent mis -declared the description of the goods for claiming exemption available to goods classifiable under CTI 8901 10 40 and (ii) the classification under which the goods were provisionally cleared that is CTI 8905 90 90 is not correct and the goods should be classified under CTI 8905 20 00 which would result in demand of differential duty. Held that - we give the benefit of doubt to the respondents and hold that there was no attempt on the part of the respondents to mis -declare the goods to evade payment of duty. In the matter of classification, we hold that the goods imported did not have a capability of drilling or productivity anything from seabed and therefore the classification under which the goods cannot be classified under CTI 8905 20 00 and therefore the CTI 8905 90 90 under which the adjudicating authority has classified the goods is most appropriate. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected accordingly.
Issues: Mis-declaration of goods for claiming exemption and correct classification of goods under Customs Tariff Item
The case involved the importation of goods initially declared as "1 No. Jack-Up Barge Type M 400L" for classification under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 8901 10 40 with exemption claim. Upon inspection, it was found that the equipment was a 'self-elevating platform' with various constituents like hull, jack houses, legs, hydraulic unit, cabins, winches, and other equipment. The Customs Department conducted a search operation and recovered documents referring to the goods as a "self-elevating platform." The importer later changed the classification claim to CTI 8905 9090. The Department alleged mis-declaration and incorrect classification, leading to a demand for differential duty. The Commissioner dropped both allegations, prompting the Revenue to appeal. In the matter of mis-declaration, the Revenue argued that documents submitted at the time of entry declaration described the goods as a "Jack-up Barge," while documents seized during a search operation referred to it as a "Non-Propelled Self-Elevating Platform." The importer claimed that the term "barge" is used interchangeably with self-elevating platforms in commercial parlance, supported by technical literature and registration as a dumb barge by the Ministry of Shipping. The Tribunal considered the evidence and held that there was no intent to evade duty through mis-declaration. Regarding the classification of goods, the dispute centered on whether the goods should be classified under CTI 8905 20 00 (floating or submersible drilling/production platforms) or CTI 8905 90 90 (other). The Revenue relied on HSN Notes for Heading 8905, emphasizing the description of self-elevating platforms under sub-category (C) as drilling or production platforms. The importer argued that the goods lacked drilling capabilities and should be classified under CTI 8905 90 90. The Tribunal agreed with the importer, noting the absence of drilling functionality and upheld the classification under CTI 8905 90 90. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed, affirming the classification chosen by the adjudicating authority. In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, finding no evidence of mis-declaration by the importer and determining that the goods were appropriately classified under CTI 8905 90 90 due to the lack of drilling capabilities, as opposed to CTI 8905 20 00 for drilling/production platforms. The decision was pronounced on 10.1.2013.
|
