2019 (8) TMI 688 - AT - Customs

Extended period of limitation - suppression of facts - Classification of imported goods - PHASE CAB EQ SHPG ASM (200V) - whether classified under heading 8537 of Customs Tariff or under heading 8504? - eligibility for reduced rate of duty under Notification No. 69/2011 - Order-in-Appeal dated 26/08/2014 through which it was held that the impugned goods were classifiable under heading 8504 was challenged before this Tribunal with application of condonation of delay of 749 days - HELD THAT - Hon ble High Court has held that in respect of impugned goods for which the Bill of Entry dated 26/07/2013 was filed by importer the Department has finally classified the goods under heading 85044010 and was affirmed by Commission (Appeal ) and not interfere by the Tribunal - We also note that contention of Revenue is that the importer has not provided all the information required to arrive at the correct classification, and therefore, there is suppression. We do not accept the contention of the Revenue because for passing the order dated 12.09.2013 the goods were subjected to first check and after filing of the Bill of Entry by importer the goods were first examined by Revenue and then they have proposed to be classified under heading 8504 and through the order dated 12/09/2013 the classification was decided under heading 8504. The Revenue had all resources and opportunities in 2013 to either know from the importer all the technical information that they required. Since Revenue have not done so, in 2016 they cannot make allegation that importer did not provide them all the information. Suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT - Since in all the three Show Cause Notices the basis for issue of Show Cause Notice is suppression, we hold that suppression on behalf of the importer is not established in this case. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff headings 8537 and 8504.
2. Allegations of suppression of information by the importer.
3. Duty demand raised through Show Cause Notices.
4. Appeal against Order-In-Original and Order-In-Appeal.
5. Challenge to direction for finalizing provisional assessment.

Classification of Imported Goods:
The case involved the classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff headings 8537 and 8504. The importers initially claimed classification under heading 8537 but were later classified under heading 8504 by the Departmental officer through an Order-In-Original in 2013. The matter was taken to the Commissioner (Appeal) who upheld the classification under heading 8504. The importer started availing reduced duty benefits under an economic agreement with Japan. The Department initiated investigations alleging that the goods were misclassified and not eligible for the reduced duty. The Tribunal noted that the High Court had affirmed the classification under heading 8504 for the specific goods imported.

Allegations of Suppression of Information:
The Department alleged that the importer suppressed information leading to misclassification and the availing of reduced duty benefits. The Show Cause Notices issued to the importer were based on these allegations of suppression. However, the Tribunal found that the importer had provided all necessary information during the classification process in 2013. The Tribunal held that since the Revenue had opportunities to seek technical information and guidance during the initial classification, they could not claim suppression in 2016. As the Show Cause Notices were solely based on suppression allegations, the Tribunal concluded that suppression by the importer was not established.

Duty Demand and Appeals:
The Department raised significant duty demands through the Show Cause Notices, totaling crores of rupees. The Order-In-Original confirmed some of these demands while dropping others on account of limitation. The importer appealed against the order, challenging the duty demands and the direction to finalize provisional assessment under heading 8537. The Tribunal allowed all three appeals filed by the importer, setting aside the confirmation of duties and penalties.

Final Decision and Consequential Relief:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue as the allegations of suppression were not sustained. The importer was granted consequential relief as per law. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of evidence supporting the suppression allegations and the proper classification process followed in 2013, leading to the rejection of duty demands and penalties imposed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of classification, suppression of information, duty demands, appeals, and the final decision rendered by the Tribunal, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and outcomes.