2015 (11) TMI 1501 - AT - Customs

Wrong claim of CVD Benefit - assessee had opted for First Check Assessment - importer had admitted their typographic error, showing willingness to pay differential duty - Misdeclaration - Held that - under the facts and circumstances no case of misdeclaration or contumacious conduct on the part of the importer is made out. I further agree with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside redemption fine and penalty. Thus the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. The respondent-assessee will be entitled to consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law. I further, direct the concerned authority to refund the fine and penalty deposited - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal against order setting aside redemption fine and penalty
- Classification of imported goods under CTH 84341000
- Allegation of misdeclaration and mala fide intention
- Applicability of Section 17 for assessment of duty
- Interpretation of self-assessment scheme
- Jurisdiction of Revenue authorities
- Consideration of past rulings in similar cases

Classification of Imported Goods:
The respondent-assessee, engaged in the business of milk products, imported an Automatic Aseptic Machine for UHT Liquid Milk. The goods were classified under CTH 84341000, with a claim for concessional duty. However, upon examination, a typographic error was admitted by the importer, offering to pay the differential duty. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted the importer's cooperation and willingness to rectify the error, leading to a decision in favor of the respondent-assessee.

Allegation of Misdeclaration:
The Revenue alleged misdeclaration and mala fide intention on the part of the importer, resulting in the confiscation of the machine and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found no evidence of mala fide intent, referencing past rulings emphasizing that a mere claim for exemption, even if incorrect, does not constitute misdeclaration warranting confiscation and penalties.

Applicability of Section 17 and Self-Assessment Scheme:
The Ld. Counsel argued that the Revenue authorities erred in not following the provisions of Section 17 for assessment of duty. The importer had opted for First Check Assessment, and there was no need for seizure and adjudication. The assessment should have been completed under Section 17(4) or 17(5). The Commissioner (Appeals) correctly set aside the redemption fine and penalty, as there was no mala fide claim made by the importer.

Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities and Past Rulings:
The Ld. Counsel highlighted failures on the part of Revenue authorities and cited past rulings to support the argument that a wrong classification claim by the importer does not automatically imply misdeclaration. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper verification by the Revenue and rejected the imposition of fines and penalties due to lapses on the part of assessing officers.

In conclusion, after considering the arguments and records, the Tribunal found no evidence of misdeclaration or contumacious conduct by the importer. The appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the respondent-assessee was entitled to consequential relief. The concerned authority was directed to refund the deposited fine and penalty within a specified timeframe.