Myntra Jabong India Pvt Ltd Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs ACC (Imports) (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that bona fide classification of goods doesn’t result into willful suppression of material facts with intent to evade payment of duty. Accordingly, invocation of extended period of limitation not justified. Thus, order deserves to be set aside and appeal is allowed.
Facts- M/s Myntra Jabong India Pvt Ltd has filed this appeal for setting aside the order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Customs, ICD (Import), Tughlakabad, New Delhi. The order holds that the provisions of section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 have been correctly invoked; confirms the classification of the Jackets proposed in the show cause notice; confirms the differential customs duty with interest but the amount deposited by the appellant was directed to be appropriated and no balance demand of duty and interest was to be recovered from the appellant; the goods have been held to be liable to confiscation u/s. 111(m) of the Customs Act but no redemption fine has been imposed as the goods were not physically available; and penalty has been imposed upon the appellant u/s. 114A of the Customs Act.
Conclusion- Held that the appellant had deposited the entire amount of duty with interest prior to the issuance of the show cause notice and the appellant also had a bona fide belief regarding the description and classification of the goods imported by the appellant. It cannot, therefore, be alleged that there was any intention of the part of the appellant to evade payment of customs duty, even if it is assumed that there was suppression of material facts by the appellant in the Bills of Entry. The extended period of limitation, therefore, could not have been invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case.
