2019 (1) TMI 255 - AT - Customs

Maintainability of appeal - substantial question of law or not - Classification of imported goods - Used Jute Bags - whether classifiable under CTH 63051090 or under the CTH 63101030? - Held that - The appellant have raised a new issue which is indeed a question of law that in the case of M/s Dipen Overseas CVD is not chargeable as Used Jute Bags imported by the appellant are not manufactured in India. This issue involved substantial question of law, therefore, can be raised at any stage - We absolutely disagree with the contention, that the appellant suo moto declared the classification of Used Jute Bags under 63051090; therefore, they cannot challenge the assessment of bill of entry. Since all the issues involved mixed question of law and fact, the matter as a whole should be considered afresh - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Heading 63051090 or CTH 63101030; Challenge to assessment order by the appellant; Maintainability of appeal by M/s Dipen Trading Company.

In a series of 12 appeals, the common issue revolved around the classification of goods imported by the appellant under Customs Heading 63051090 as other Jute Bags as claimed by the Revenue or under CTH 63101030 as used Gunning Cutting as claimed by the appellant. The appellant initially declared the goods as Used Jute Bags under 63051090 in the bill of entry. Subsequently, after challenging the assessment order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal of M/s Dipen Trading Company but passed orders on merit for the appeals of Dipen Overseas. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) held that since the appellant self-declared the goods under CTH 63051090, they could not contest the assessment. This decision led to the appellant filing the present appeal.

In the appeals filed by M/s Dipen Overseas, a new ground was raised before the Tribunal regarding the non-manufacture of Used Jute Bags in India, thus questioning the chargeability of CVD. The appellant argued that the imported goods were used and cut gunning bags falling under 63101030, not freshly manufactured Jute Bags under 63051090. Additionally, it was contended that the bill of entry is an assessment order, allowing the importer to challenge it regardless of prior acceptance. On the other hand, the Revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found the new issue raised by M/s Dipen Overseas regarding the non-chargeability of CVD on Used Jute Bags to be a substantial question of law that could be raised at any stage. The Tribunal disagreed with the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the maintainability of the appeal by M/s Dipen Trading Company, citing established legal precedents that assessment orders of bill of entry are appealable. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for a fresh assessment by the relevant authority to address all issues comprehensively.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, emphasizing the need for a thorough reconsideration of all legal and factual aspects involved in the classification of the imported goods and the challenge to the assessment order, ensuring a reasoned decision by the assessing/adjudicating authority.