Supreme Court refused to condone 431 Days Delay in filing Customs Appeal [Read Judgement]
Since the mis-declaration of the description, classification and value as alleged by the Department has not been established, the CESTAT held that the goods imported are not liable confiscation
Customs - Appeal - Taxscan
Customs - Appeal - Taxscan
A two-judge bench of Pankaj Mithal and Prasanna B. Varale dismissed the appeal on ground of delay. The appeal arose out of impugned final judgment and order dated 21-03-2024 in CA No. 78675/2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, East Zonal Bench, Kolkata.
M/s. Twinkle Tradecom (P) Ltd., filed a Bill of Entry No. 3389675 dated 26.09.2017 for clearance of goods declared as "Electric Tricycle Spare Parts" under CTH No. 8708.99.00. The Departmental officers were of the view that the goods imported were in the nature of e-rickshaw in CKD condition. The allegation of the department is that the imported consignments have 2 Appeal No.: C/78675/2018-DB all the essential components of e-rickshaw and if all the parts are assembled together that would make 220 sets of e-rickshaws (without battery). Accordingly, the goods imported were considered as complete e-rickshaws in CKD condition.
On adjudication, the Additional Commissioner re-assessed the Bill of Entry by classifying the goods under Tariff Item No. 87038040. Further re-determined the Assessable Value of the imported goods as Rs.54,67,440/- and re- determined Duty of Rs.25,48,264/-. The goods were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration of description and classification of the goods.
Further imposed redemption fine of Rs.7,50,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and imposed penalty of Rs. 75000/- under Section 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962.
On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the goods as imported by the respondent are the 'spare parts of electric tricycle' and accordingly, classified the same under CTH 8708.99.00. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the value declared by the respondent in the impugned Bill of Entry was enhanced by the assessing officer in accordance with the change in classification of the goods as imported in CKD condition by the lower authority.
Since the mis-declaration of the description, classification and value as alleged by the Department has not been established, the CESTAT held that the goods imported are not liable for confiscation. Accordingly, upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) order setting aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
