9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 1532 - AT - CustomsScope of SCN - Classification of goods - Penalties - Held that - The adjudicating authority has decided the classification of the export goods exported as not classifiable under 3817009 as declared by appellant and correctly classified under ITC Heading 25.01. It is also observed that in the SCN, there is no proposal for change of classification, therefore, in the adjudication order deciding the classification is not legal and proper and beyond the SCN. Since the classification has a bearing on the overall case of nature of product as well as valuation, due to the ambiguity created by adjudicating authority in deciding the classification without any proposal for the same in the SCN, the entire matter needs to be re-considered - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues: Classification of export goods under ITC Heading, Mis-declaration of goods in shipping bills, Confiscation of goods, Determination of value, Penalties imposed
Classification of Export Goods: The case involved the classification of export goods under ITC Heading No. 38170019, declared by the appellant, which the adjudicating authority classified under ITC Heading 25.01. The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority's decision on classification was not legally sound as there was no proposal for a change in classification in the Show Cause Notice (SCN). The Tribunal emphasized that the issue of classification significantly impacts the nature of the product and its valuation. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision considering the lack of clarity in the SCN regarding the classification proposal. Mis-declaration of Goods: The appellant had declared the goods in the shipping bills as "Linear Alkyl Benzene Sulphonic Acid Sodium Salt (Industrial Surfactant)." However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) contended that the goods were mis-declared due to the predominant presence of Sodium Chloride and the low percentage of active matter "LABSA." The DRI argued that the goods should be considered as Sodium Chloride and not as declared. Consequently, the goods were alleged to be liable for confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Principal Commissioner of Customs upheld the mis-declaration and confiscated the goods, imposing a redemption fine. Confiscation of Goods and Determination of Value: Following the alleged mis-declaration, the Principal Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods under Section 113(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, the value of the goods was re-determined by adopting the value of contemporary exports of Common Salt. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalties under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962, and a specific penalty on the Director under Section 114AA. Decision and Remand: The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, found that the adjudicating authority had overstepped its jurisdiction by deciding on the classification without a corresponding proposal in the SCN. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, considering the lack of clarity in the classification issue. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, keeping all issues open for reconsideration by the adjudicating authority. This detailed summary encompasses the issues of classification, mis-declaration, confiscation, valuation, and penalties involved in the legal judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD.
|
