9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (12) TMI 621 - AT - CustomsLevy of penalty - Mis-declaration of goods - Self assessment of Bill of entry - dispute related to classification of goods - import of Bulk Reishi Gano Powder-100% Ganoderma and Bulk Ganocelium Powder-100% and Gano Mycelium - to be classified under Customs Tariff Heading CTH 30039011 or CTH 21069099 - HELD THAT - In the impugned order the Principal Commissioner obfuscated the fact that the Final Order of this Tribunal was passed on an appeal by the Revenue as the Commissioner (Appeals) had decided the classification in favour of the importer. Until the Final Order was passed by this Tribunal on 10.1.2018, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was binding on both sides. In these Bills of Entry also, after the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), SCNs could have been issued and transferred to call book and decided after this Tribunal passed the Final Order. However, until the Final Order of this Tribunal was issued, the order of Commissioner (Appeals) was binding both on the importer and the officers. Self Assessment of Bill of Entry - While the importer is required to subscribe to the truth of the contents of the Bill of Entry, it refers to facts and not opinions. There cannot be any absolute true or false views. The importer may self-assess the duty under a particular tariff heading as per its view and understanding, the officer re-assessing the Bill of Entry may take hold a different view. In the subsequent chain of appeals through Commissioner (Appeals), Tribunal and Supreme Court, different views may be taken and at any point of time, the view of the higher judicial/ quasi-judicial authority prevails over the view of the lower authority. Self-assessment is subject to any reassessment by the proper officer. Self-assessment can also be appealed against to the Commissioner (Appeals). They can assess duty as per their understanding and the officers are free to reassess it as per Section 17(4). Mis-classification or incorrect assessment of duty does not amount to mis-declaration in the Bill of Entry nor does it attract any penalty. Levy of penalty u/s 112 (a) (ii) - Penalty under section 112 (a) (ii) is imposable on any person for acts or omissions which render any goods liable to confiscation under section 111. - The goods were not confiscated even in the impugned order under section 111(d). Section 111(m) applies if goods do not correspond to an entry made under section 46 and there is no allegation, let alone evidence in this case that the goods were not as per declaration. The allegation of mis-classification of goods, even if it is true, will not attract 111(m). Levy of penalty u/s 114AA - There is no allegation or evidence that the goods were wrongly declared and the allegation of mis-classification or incorrect assessment of duty, even if it is true, will not attract penalty under section 114AA. No penalty.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of penalties imposed under Section 112(a)(ii) and Section 114AA on the appellant. 2. Classification dispute of imported goods under CTH 30039011 vs. CTH 21069099. 3. Validity of the self-assessment of duty by the importer and the role of the Customs Broker. 4. Liability of goods for confiscation under Section 111(m) and 111(o). Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Penalties Imposed on the Appellant: The appellant, a licensed Customs Broker, was penalized Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 112(a)(ii) and Rs. 5,00,000/- under Section 114AA. The penalties were contested on the grounds that the appellant had an unblemished record and acted in accordance with the Commissioner (Appeals) order, which was binding until the Tribunal's Final Order on 10.1.2018. The Tribunal found that the appellant correctly followed the Commissioner (Appeals) order and there was no evidence that the appellant was aware of the Tribunal's Final Order when filing the last Bill of Entry. Therefore, the penalties were deemed unsustainable and were set aside. 2. Classification Dispute of Imported Goods: The imported goods were initially classified under CTH 30039011 by the appellant but were re-assessed under CTH 21069099 by the Assistant Commissioner. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the appellant's classification, but the Tribunal later ruled in favor of the Revenue, classifying the goods under CTH 21069099. Despite this, the appellant continued to file Bills of Entry under CTH 30039011 as per the Commissioner (Appeals) order until the Tribunal's Final Order. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's actions were in compliance with the then-binding Commissioner (Appeals) order. 3. Validity of Self-Assessment of Duty: The Tribunal emphasized that self-assessment of duty by the importer or Customs Broker under Section 17(1) is subject to re-assessment by the proper officer under Section 17(4). Incorrect self-assessment does not constitute mis-declaration. The Tribunal found that the appellant's self-assessment was proper and in line with the Commissioner (Appeals) order. The Tribunal also noted that the RMS system's clearance of goods based on self-assessment does not alter the legal position. 4. Liability of Goods for Confiscation: The Principal Commissioner held the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) and 111(o), but did not impose a redemption fine as the goods were already cleared. The Tribunal found that Section 111(m) does not apply to mis-classification but to mis-declaration of goods. The goods were correctly declared as per the Commissioner (Appeals) order, and thus, were not liable for confiscation under Section 111(m). Consequently, the penalties under Section 112 and 114AA were not justified. Conclusion: The Tribunal set aside the penalties under Section 112 and 114AA imposed on the appellant, finding that the appellant acted in compliance with the Commissioner (Appeals) order and there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing or mis-declaration. The appeal was allowed, and the penalties were annulled.
|
