9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 1457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the case? - HELD THAT:- On record is the examination report dated 03.01.2019 which shows that the medical equipment was as per the invoice and the Bills of Entry. Once, the respondent had declared the goods in the Bills of Entry under a particular Tariff Item, nothing prevented the officers from verifying the same and in the present case, as noted above, the verification was also done after which the goods were cleared. It is subsequently that the department believed that the goods deserved classification under a different Tariff Item declared by the respondent. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was, therefore, for goods reasons set-aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) as the respondent had not suppressed facts, and in an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jan, Advocates for the Respondent ORDER The department has filed this appeal to assail the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) by which the demand raised for the extended period of limitation under section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 [the Customs Act] has been set-aside, but the matter has remanded to the adjudicating authority to take decision on merits on the normal period of limitation. 2. It transpires that the respondent imported consignments by classifying the same under Customs Tariff Item [CTI] 90189099/90275090/90278090 and claimed the benefit of reduced Basic Customs Duty under Notification No. 24/20058 dated 01.03.2005 and Notification No. 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012. 3. A show cause notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rted goods and by mis-declaring the value and description of the impugned goods, the importer failed to fulfil the said statutory obligations casted on them. Further, even after the issue of multiple summons the importer failed to submit required documents/detail/information for the correct classification of goods. Thus, from the foregoing discussion I find that the Importer wilfully mis-stated the description of goods in Bills of entry and suppressed the information about the actual functions of the impugned goods with the intention to evade Customs Duty. As a consequence of this, an amount of Customs Duty to the tune of Rs 43,37,801/- (Rupees forty three lakhs thirty seven thousand eight hundred one only) (as per the impugned show cause n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of facts or willful misstatement to attract extended period of limitation. No evidence has been brought on record to establish fraud or collusion or suppression of facts with intent to evade duty. Besides the case laws cited by the appellant, I note that similar stand has been taken in case of Sachin Kshirsagar (2023 (383) E.L.T. 190 (Tri.-Mumbai)" 6. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance on the following decisions:- (i) Sachin Kshirsagar vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import-I), Mumbai [2023 (383) ELT 190 (Tri.-Mumbai)] (ii) SirthaiSuperware India Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva-III [2020 (371) ELT 324 (Tri.-Mumbai)] (iii) Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent in the Bills of Entry and also uphold the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent it holds that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked. To support his plea, learned counsel has placed the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the customs officer that indicates that 10% of the goods were required to be opened and examined and verified whether the goods are as per the invoice, packing list and Airway Bill. Learned counsel has also placed the report dated 03.01.2019 that mentions that the medical equipments are as per the invoice bill that were attached. 9. The submissions advanced by the learned authorized representative appearing for the department and the learned counsel appearing for the resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ord is the examination report dated 03.01.2019 which shows that the medical equipment was as per the invoice and the Bills of Entry. Once, the respondent had declared the goods in the Bills of Entry under a particular Tariff Item, nothing prevented the officers from verifying the same and in the present case, as noted above, the verification was also done after which the goods were cleared. It is subsequently that the department believed that the goods deserved classification under a different Tariff Item declared by the respondent. The invocation of the extended period of limitation was, therefore, for goods reasons set-aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) as the respondent had not suppressed facts, and in any case it cannot be said that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
