2017 (1) TMI 75 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Calcium Carbonate - classified under CTH 2530.90 or under CTH 3824.90? - time bar - Held that - the issue is squarely covered by the tribunal decision in case of Gulshan Sugar & Chemicals Works 1998 (12) TMI 541 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI wherein the same goods was held to be classified under CTH 38.24 - the goods coated calcium carbonate is classifiable under Chapter 3824.90. Extended period of limitation - Held that - when the matter was under dispute, appellant changed the description in the Bill of Entry. They, earlier were declaring as coated calcium carbonate but subsequently in the Bill of Entry of the relevant period, they have ignored the word coated . This shows clear intention of the appellant that they intentionally suppressed the correct description of the goods to mislead the department - there is suppression of facts on the part of the appellant therefore the demand for longer period was rightly confirmed. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under CTH 3824.90 instead of CTH 2530.90, differential duty demand, interest recovery, and penalty imposition. Applicability of extended period of demand due to suppression of facts by the appellant.

Classification Issue:
The case involved a dispute over the classification of imported "Calcium Carbonate" under CTH 2530.90 as claimed by the appellant versus the department's contention of classifying it under CTH 3824.90 as coated calcium carbonate. The department conducted tests and investigations establishing that the product was indeed coated calcium carbonate, leading to the adjudicating authority ordering reclassification under CTH 3824.90.

Differential Duty Demand, Interest Recovery, and Penalty Imposition:
The adjudicating authority demanded the payment of the differential duty amounting to ?68,30,147 under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, along with interest under Section 28 AB and imposed a penalty of the same amount on the appellant under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that similar goods were previously classified differently and cited past cases to support their claim for leniency in penalty imposition.

Extended Period of Demand:
The appellant contended that the extended period of demand was not justified as there was no malafide intention on their part. They argued that despite the classification under CTH 3824.90, the penalty and fine should be dropped. The Revenue, however, asserted that there was clear suppression of facts by the appellant to mislead the department, justifying the invocation of the extended period of demand.

Judgment Analysis:
The Tribunal upheld the classification of the goods as coated calcium carbonate under CTH 3824.90 based on previous decisions and the evidence presented. Regarding the limitation issue, the Tribunal found that the appellant intentionally changed the description in the Bill of Entry to mislead the department, indicating a clear intention to suppress facts. The Tribunal agreed with the adjudicating authority that there was suppression of facts by the appellant, justifying the confirmation of the demand for an extended period. The appeal was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's appeal.

Overall, the judgment focused on the correct classification of the imported goods, the imposition of differential duty, interest recovery, penalty imposition, and the applicability of the extended period of demand due to the appellant's suppression of facts to mislead the department.