2018 (7) TMI 346 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Other woven fabrics of polyester staple fibre - the Department issued show cause notices dated 02.09.2010 contending that the imported fabrics were Polyester made with filament yarn classifiable under CTH 5407 69 00 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1985 - Held that - There were contradictions in the findings, the matter requires reconsideration - appellants are allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1985
Applicability of extended period of limitation for demand of duty
Proper consideration of submissions by Adjudicating authority

Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1985:
The appeals were filed against Orders-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification of imported fabrics. The importers declared the goods as "Other woven fabrics of polyester staple fibre" under HSN 5512 11 10. The department, based on test results, contended that the fabrics were "Polyester made with filament yarn" classifiable under CTH 5407 69 00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1985. Subsequent tests and market surveys led to a corrigendum classifying the goods under 5407 52 90. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the duty demand, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal referred to similar cases and allowed the appeals by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority for fresh consideration.

Applicability of extended period of limitation for demand of duty:
The main contention raised was that the demand was barred by limitation as the Bills of Entry were finalized. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted no suppression of facts to evade duty payment and acknowledged the department's mistake due to lack of knowledge. However, there was a contradiction in the findings. The Tribunal observed that the impugned orders could not be sustained further due to the lack of proper consideration of the appellant's submissions. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision in accordance with the law.

Proper consideration of submissions by Adjudicating authority:
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of proper consideration of the appellant's submissions by the Adjudicating authority. It noted that the department's mistake was due to a lack of knowledge, and there was a contradiction in the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). As a result, the impugned orders were set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision. The appeals were allowed by the Tribunal for further consideration by the Adjudicating authority.