2017 (4) TMI 314 - AT - Customs

Import of video cassette blanks - classified under CTH 852390.09 or otherwise - It is the case of importer-appellant that the goods will fall under category of freely importable ones, while department s view is otherwise. Adjudicating authority in the impugned order has come to a conclusion that since width of the cassettes is not mentioned as any documents and even the examination report does not indicate the width as also that this point was not taken during the earlier proceedings, the goods fall under the category of restricted goods - whether the imported goods in this case are freely importable or otherwise? - Held that - adjudicating authority should have considered the submission of the appellant in its correct perspective as appellant has procured the S-VHS recorder/player and produced the same before the adjudicating authority. Instead of deciding the issue on facts by ascertaining whether the cassettes are compatible with S-VHS recorder/player, adjudicating authority decided the issue on technicality. The decision of Tribunal in the case of Phil Corporation 2000 (11) TMI 683 - CEGAT, MUMBAI squarely covers the issue, as in that case also similar cassettes were imported and the same objections were raised, while allowing appeal of the appellant-importer Tribunal held that the goods imported are freely importable - the two decisions of Tribunal categorically hold that similar goods as imported by appellant are freely importable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported video cassettes under Customs Tariff Act and Exim Policy, confiscation of goods under Customs Act, imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Classification under Customs Tariff Act and Exim Policy:
The case involved the classification of imported video cassettes under the Customs Tariff Act and the Exim Policy. The importers claimed the classification under 8523.90 of the Customs Tariff Act. However, the corresponding classification under the Exim Policy 1997-2002 was restricted and required a license for importation. The importers did not possess a valid license for the claimed classification, leading to confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration based on specific directions. The adjudicating authority, upon re-adjudication, held that the goods imported by the appellant did not merit classification under the claimed category and were restricted goods, thus upholding the confiscation and imposing a redemption fine and penalty under the Customs Act.

Contentions and Analysis:
The appellant contended that the imported cassettes were suitable for use with specific recorders as per the ITC policy and were freely importable. The counsel referred to previous Tribunal decisions supporting the importability of similar goods. The department, however, reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority, emphasizing the lack of mention of cassette width in the documentation. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and records, focusing on whether the imported goods were freely importable. The relevant entries of the ITC Policy were examined to determine the classification. The adjudicating authority's decision was challenged on the grounds that technicalities were prioritized over factual compatibility with S-VHS recorders.

Judicial Precedents and Conclusion:
The Tribunal considered previous cases where similar cassettes were imported and found them to be freely importable. Reference was made to specific Tribunal decisions that supported the appellant's claim. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods were compatible with S-VHS recorders, as demonstrated during the proceedings. It was noted that the adjudicating authority erred in its conclusion, and the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act was deemed unsustainable. Citing authoritative judicial pronouncements, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The decision highlighted the importance of factual compatibility and adherence to the provisions of the Exim Policy in determining the importability of goods.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal's judgment focused on the correct classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act and the Exim Policy, emphasizing factual compatibility with specific recorders. The decision underscored the need for a thorough assessment of technical aspects and adherence to policy provisions in determining the importability of goods, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal.