2024 (9) TMI 941 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - spectrometers - to be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) under 90273010 or under CTH 90221900? - benefit of exemption Notification No. 24/2005 dated 01.03.2005 - time limitation. Time Limitation - HELD THAT - There is no allegation of suppression of facts in the impugned orders. Appellant had made declaration as per the invoice/details provided by overseas supplier and there is no allegation of any fraud, collusion or willful misstatement or suppression of facts to invoke the extended period of limitation. Thus, the demand made against the goods imported against Bill of Entry No. 435639 dated 11.06.2010 by issuing a Show Cause Notice after 1 year and 6(six) months is barred by limitation and impugned orders are unsustainable. Classification - HELD THAT - The issue of classification of the impugned imported goods is not decided as the issue of limitation is considered, and it is found that the impugned order is unsustainable on limitation. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of spectrometers; Allegation of improper declaration at the time of import; Demand of duty based on re-classification; Bar on limitation for demanding duty; Applicability of penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962; Appeal against Order-in-Original; Extended period of limitation; Suppression of facts; Merit of the case; Reference to relevant case laws.

Classification of Spectrometers:
The appeal addressed the issue of the classification of spectrometers imported by the Appellant. Initially declared under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 90273010, the goods were later re-classified by the Respondent under CTH 90221900, attracting a Basic Customs Duty of 7.5%. The Appellant argued that the initial declaration was based on proper documentation and assessment by the Customs officer, and the demand for differential duty was raised belatedly, after more than a year and a half, without evidence of suppression of facts at the time of import.

Bar on Limitation and Allegation of Suppression of Facts:
The Appellant contended that the demand for duty was time-barred as the Show Cause Notice was issued after an extended period without any evidence of fraud, collusion, or willful misstatement. Citing relevant case law, the Appellant argued that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked without a positive act indicating suppression of facts. The Tribunal found that there was no allegation of suppression of facts and that the demand made against the goods imported was indeed barred by limitation.

Merits of the Case and Reference to Case Laws:
The Appellant further argued on the merits of the case, presenting invoices and product catalogues to support their initial declaration. Reference was made to a judgment by the Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasizing the importance of correct particulars and the absence of dishonest intentions in duty declarations. The Tribunal considered these arguments along with the lack of investigation or statements recorded from the Appellant, concluding that the demand for duty was unsustainable and that the issue of classification was not fully addressed due to the limitation issue.

Decision and Conclusion:
After hearing both sides and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the demand for duty against the imported goods was barred by limitation and unsustainable due to the absence of suppression of facts. The appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief in accordance with the law. The judgment highlighted the importance of proper declarations, absence of fraudulent intentions, and the need for evidence to invoke extended periods of limitation in customs cases.