Anil Kumar Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chandigarh)
The appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Chandigarh arose from reclassification and consequential duty demand on imported garments. The appellant had imported a consignment declared as “Women Knitted Scarves, Shawl Assorted and others” under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 61171040 through a Bill of Entry dated 16.02.2017. Acting on specific intelligence, the Special Intelligence and Investigation Branch examined the goods and found that 5,896 pieces were ‘ponchos’ and 1,350 pieces were ‘capes’, mis-declared as scarves or shawls. The Textiles Committee, Ludhiana, an expert body, examined the goods and confirmed through its report dated 20.03.2017 that the items were ponchos and capes, not scarves or shawls.
Based on this report, the goods were seized and a show cause notice proposed confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, reclassification under CTH 61023010/61023020, demand of differential duty of ₹38,78,650, and imposition of penalty. The adjudicating authority confirmed the reclassification, demanded differential duty, imposed a redemption fine of ₹2,00,000 and a penalty of ₹50,000.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant contended that the goods were different styles of shawls or scarves, that similar goods were being cleared as scarves at other ports, and that the duty demanded per piece was commercially unfeasible given the market price. Reliance was also placed on earlier court orders directing release of goods and on hardship due to demurrage and detention charges.
