Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (9) TMI 946

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dify the classification adopted by the appellant and finalize the benefit under the MEIS eligible to them. It is found the appellant cannot be held responsible for misdeclaration of classification, if any, in the Shipping Bill. It is the responsibility of the proper officer of customs to decide the classification of the goods. Accordingly, the allegation in the impugned order that the appellant has contravened the Regulation 10 (d) and 10(e) of CBLR 2018 is not sustainable. Thus, the penalty imposed on the appellant under 18(1) of the CBLR, 2018 is also not sustainable. This view is supported by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Max Miller Agencies Vs Commissioner of Customs [ 2024 (1) TMI 1220 - CESTAT CHENNAI ] wherein this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he imposition of penalty, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The appellant submits that they have filed the Shipping Bill classifying the goods under the CTH 36050090. The appellant submits that it is the duty of the proper officer to decide the classification of the product. They have filed the Shipping Bill as per their understanding of the classification of the product. If the department has any objection to the classification adopted by them, then they are free to change the classification and pass appropriate orders. Thus, the appellant submits that they have no role in the misdeclaration of the classification of the product. Accordingly, they submit that penalty imposed on them under Regulation 18(1) under CBLR, 2018 is not susta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0.01.2024 wherein this Tribunal has held as under: 5. Ld. Counsel took me through Regulation 10 (d) and 10 (e) and submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no non-compliance of any provisions of the Customs Act by the exporter and hence there was nothing to bring to the knowledge of the of Deputy Commissioner / Asst. Commissioner of Customs and consequently, there was no question of contravention of provision of Regulation 10 (d) of CBLR 2018. He also referred to the Advisory No.01/2022 dt. 29.12.2002 issued by the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai wherein it has been clearly advised that the officers engaged in the show cause notice issued on the basis of audit should be advised not to invoke violation of pro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant has also given justification for the said classification. Further, I find that the assessing officers were well aware of the classification and they allowed the said classification without any objection. The respondent did not raise any objection to the adopted classification even though the description of the export goods was correctly declared. Further, I find that it is not only the appellant who has followed this classification with regard to impugned goods rather other exporters were also adopting the same classification which was followed at Tuticorin port during the period from April 2015 to October 2020. Further, I find that even DGFT authorities who are in charge of the Foreign Trade Policy have also allowed the MEIS 7 Cust .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the same supplier had earlier been cleared as non-texturised polyester fabrics which gave them the bona fide belief that the present consignment would also be of non-texturised variety. Accordingly, it cannot be claimed by the Revenue that the Appellants have deliberately misdeclared the goods with a view to avail the benefit of lesser rate of duty. Consequently, confiscation and redemption fine as well penalty is set aside 9. Similarly in the case of CCE Visakhapatnam Vs Smithkline Beecham Consumer Health Care Ltd. reported in 2004 (167) ELT 225 (Tri.-Bang.), the Tribunal held in para-3 as under : 3. We have perused the records and heard both sides. The learned Counsel representing the assessee submits that the issue is no more res integra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates