2023 (6) TMI 253 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Precision Agri Spray Equipment, Charger and Smart Battery - to be classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 8424 8200 or under CTH 8804? - HELD THAT - The department has not considered the submissions made by the appellant in the appeal memorandum filed before the Tribunal. Further, it is surprising that how can a Shed Officer posted in the port of import without a detailed examination of goods, either by taking the assistance of technical expert or chartered engineer, can certify about a product and on the basis of such certification, the department will proceed against the importer for confirmation of duty demand or for confiscation of the goods. Since the issue requires a detailed examination by an expert or specialist in the concerned field, the appeal is required to be allowed by way of remand to the original authority for carrying out an effective and meaningful adjudication. The appeal allowed by way of remand to the original authority for fresh fact finding on the issue involved in this appeal.

Summary

Issues involved:
The classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff, misdeclaration of goods, adjudication under Customs Act, imposition of penalty, appeal before Tribunal.

Classification of imported goods:
The appellant imported goods declared as "Precision Agri Spray Equipment, Charger and Smart Battery" under Customs Tariff Item 8424 8200. However, upon examination, it was found that the goods were misdeclared as "Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA)" classifiable under CTH 8804. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a penalty under Section 112(a) of the same Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the adjudication order, leading to the appellant's appeal before the Tribunal.

Contentions of the appellant:
The appellant contended that the imported goods were "Precision Agri Spray Equipment/Drone" and highlighted that the goods were not ready to fly upon import. They argued that further development activities were required post-importation, such as hardware and software integration, testing, and certification. The appellant emphasized that the impugned order did not address their submissions adequately, and questioned how a Shed Officer could certify a product without expert examination, leading to the need for a detailed examination by a specialist.

Tribunal's decision:
After examining the submissions and orders, the Tribunal found that the department did not consider the appellant's contentions properly. They expressed surprise at the lack of detailed examination by an expert before taking action against the importer. The Tribunal concluded that a remand to the original authority was necessary for a thorough examination by approved agencies to determine the correct classification of the goods. The appellant was granted a personal hearing in this process. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by way of remand for fresh fact-finding on the issue.