9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 163X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fiable under CTH 5801. It is only after the second test report the Revenue could arrive at a conclusion that the goods are classifiable under CTH 5801. It cannot be said that the assessee had misclassified the goods with an intention to evade payment duty. The decision of the Tribunal that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee, even though the classification of the goods claimed by the assessee is not correct, it was not a case for confiscation/redemption cannot be faulted. - Customs Appeal (L) No. 27 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 25-6-2012 - J.P. Devadhar and R.Y. Ganoo, JJ. Shri Pradeep S. Jetly, for the Appellant. Shri Prakash Shah i/b PDS Legal, for the Respondent. JUDGMENT Whether the CESTAT was justifi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessee had misdeclared the value of the goods and had misclassified the goods, the same were liable to be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the goods in question were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty. On appeal, the Tribunal by order dated 7th April, 2011 set aside the order-in-original dated 23rd August, 2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. 6. On fresh adjudication, the Adjudicating Authority once again held that the goods were classifiable under CTH 5801 32 00 and determined the value of the goods at Rs. 1,81,80,771/- under Rule 6 r/w Rule 5 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 2007. As the declare ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fine and penalty. 9. Since the valuation of the goods declared by the assessee is ultimately accepted by the Revenue, the only question to be considered is, whether the Tribunal was justified in setting aside the confiscation even after holding that the classification of the goods declared by the assessee is erroneous. 10. The argument of Mr. Jetly, learned Counsel, for the Revenue is that once the Tribunal has upheld the assessment order to the effect that the imported goods are not polyester fabrics and hence, cannot be classified under CTH 5407 52 10/5407 52 20 as claimed by the assessee, but the goods are cut weft pile fabrics called corduroy classifiable under CTH 5801 32 00, it is evident that there is misdeclaration and miscl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en after the first test report, the Revenue could not arrive at a conclusion that the goods are classifiable under CTH 5801. It is only after the second test report the Revenue could arrive at a conclusion that the goods are classifiable under CTH 5801. If there is no difference in the price of polyester fabrics and the price of corduroy, then in the absence of any evidence to show that the assessee was aware of the fact that the goods imported are corduroy, it cannot be said that the assessee had misclassified the goods with an intention to evade payment duty. 12. In these circumstances, the decision of the Tribunal that there was no mala fide intention on the part of the assessee in misdeclaring the goods and, therefore, even though the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
