2019 (6) TMI 1156 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of imported goods - L2 corded 20 scrubber - classification of the goods - whether classified under Heading No. 8479 8999 of First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under Heading No. 8508 6000 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975? - HELD THAT - It is clear that the goods, operating as a vacuum cleaner, is equipped with electric motor. It, therefore, cannot be fitted within the description sought by the customs authorities. It is also clear that subsequent consignments have been assessed without any objection to the classification declared by the appellant. These were not altered then or challenged subsequently. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975

Analysis:
1. The dispute in the appeal pertains to the classification of goods imported against specific Bills of Entry under Heading No. 8479 8999 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which were declared as 'L2 corded 20 scrubber'. The original authority ordered the re-classification of the goods under Heading No. 8508 6000 of the same schedule.

2. The key contention raised by the appellant's counsel was that the imported goods, designed for floor cleaning, operate with a 'vacuum motor' as evidenced in the goods' literature. The appellant argued that the classification of 'vacuum cleaner' proposed by the lower authorities did not accurately describe the product's multiple cleaning actions and excluded electric motor-powered vacuum cleaners. The appellant emphasized that the declared classification should be accepted by default as no alternative classification was proposed, and subsequent consignments were assessed at a lower duty rate based on the declared classification.

3. The Authorized Representative for the respondent contended that the machine in question, being multi-functional for scrubbing and vacuuming, did not fit the description claimed by the appellant, as it was distinguished by its individual functions. He argued that as long as the goods met the description of a 'vacuum cleaner,' there was no need to consider any other classification.

4. The Tribunal observed that the imported goods, operating as a vacuum cleaner, were equipped with an electric motor, making them ineligible for the classification sought by the customs authorities. Additionally, subsequent consignments were assessed without objection to the declared classification, which was not altered or challenged thereafter.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal found no valid reason to uphold the impugned orders reclassifying the goods and set them aside, thereby allowing the appeals in favor of the appellant. The operative part of the decision was pronounced in court, bringing the matter to a close.