2018 (1) TMI 722 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - outer RIM part of tractor trolley - classified under CTH 87169010 or under CTH 8708? - Anti Dumping duty is imposable even on CKD or SKD condition - Held that - the goods imported were commercially known and declared in the invoice as tractor trolley parts under Heading 8716. The principal use asserted for such Rim and disk is with the tractor trolley used mainly for agriculture related activities - The Original Authority relying on a statement of the respondent that the said rims and disks can be used in a commercial vehicle proceeded to classify the same attracting AD duty - In the absence of any sustainable evidence there is no justification for re-classifying the product and also to reject the declared value. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of goods, incorrect classification, valuation of imported goods, imposition of Anti Dumping Duty, appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals)

The judgment involves an appeal by Revenue against an order of Commissioner (Appeals) concerning misdeclaration of goods, incorrect classification, and valuation of imported goods. The respondent filed a bill of entry declaring the goods as "outer RIM part of tractor trolley." The Original Authority held the goods were misdeclared, reclassified them under a different category attracting Anti Dumping Duty, and imposed penalties. On appeal, the Appellate Authority upheld the declared classification and valuation, citing the description under CTH 8716 and lack of valid reasons for reclassification. The Revenue contended that the goods were misdeclared, and Anti Dumping Duty should apply based on the Supreme Court decision. The respondent argued that the original order lacked justification for reclassification and that the imported goods did not meet the criteria for Anti Dumping Duty under Heading 8708.7.

The Appellate Tribunal noted the lack of justification for reclassification and rejection of the declared value in the original order. It observed that the goods were declared as "tractor trolley parts" under Heading 8716, primarily used for agricultural activities. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellate Authority's analysis, highlighting serious flaws in the original order and the absence of sustainable evidence for reclassification and value rejection. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the correctness of the impugned order and emphasizing the importance of evidence in such cases.

In conclusion, the judgment addresses issues related to misdeclaration, classification, valuation of imported goods, and the imposition of Anti Dumping Duty. It underscores the necessity of providing valid justifications and evidence in reclassifying goods and rejecting declared values. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the Revenue's appeal signifies the importance of thorough analysis and evidence-based decision-making in customs matters.