No Evidence, other than Conjecture about Conspiracy to Disassemble Branded Products: CESTAT sets aside order for Recovery of Duty [Read Order]

Evidence - Branded Products - CESTAT - Duty - taxscan

The Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai has set asides an order for recovery of duty since no evidence, other than conjecture about the conspiracy to disassemble branded products.

The assessees, M/s Arigato and Obligado Merchandise Pvt Ltd, M/s Ankit Enterprises, and M/s Harshul Enterprises import television sets, video compact disc (VCD) players, and music systems in disassembled form. The respondent alleged that the importers have resorted to mis-declarations, concerning the description as well as the value of electronic goods namely TV, VCD Player, and Music systems by declaring them as Electronic Parts/Components. The impugned goods imported under 5 bills of entry in SKD condition have the essential character of the complete unit of TV, VCD Player/Music system.

They have fastened jointly with the recovery of duty under section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. On appeal Commissioner of Customs (Import), confirmed the recovery under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 along with interest as applicable under section 28AB of Customs Act, 1962.

The Tribunal observed that the goods have been imported, and presented, separately and independently; no evidence, other than conjecture about the conspiracy to disassemble branded products. No judicial decisions approve the contrived combining of separate imports in circumstances of lack of evidence of admitted conspiracy. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that each, or all, of these actions, before arrival in India, or presumed as intended to be undertaken after clearance, are in breach of any provision of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Coram of Mr. C J Mathew, Member (Technical), and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial) has held that “the impugned order fails on the test of law and, therefore, the appeals of M/s Arigato and Obligado Merchandise Pvt Ltd, Mr. Devendra Ahuja, and Mr. Ramesh Mehta are, thus, allowed”.

Mr. R K Dwivedy appeared for the appellant and Adv. Jatin Singhal appeared for the assessee.

Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the Judgment

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.

taxscan-loader