Vanesa Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Vs Principal Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
The principal issue before the Tribunal was whether the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be invoked in a case involving an alleged incorrect classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff, resulting in demands of differential customs duty, interest, penalty under Section 114A, and confiscation under Section 111(m).
The appellant challenged the order confirming customs duty demands relating to imports made through ICD (Import), TKD and Delhi Air Cargo, together with interest, penalty, and confiscation. The show cause notice alleged that the imported goods had been wrongly classified and invoked the extended period under Section 28(4) on the grounds of wilful misstatement and suppression of facts.
The appellant contended that the dispute was purely one of tariff classification. It submitted that the classification adopted was based on its own understanding, that all relevant facts had been disclosed, and that no objection had been raised to similar Bills of Entry for earlier imports. It also argued that the extended period of limitation was not applicable in such circumstances.
The Commissioner upheld the invocation of the extended period, holding that the appellant had changed the classification of the imported goods during different periods to avail a lower rate of duty. The Commissioner concluded that the conduct amounted to wilful misstatement and suppression of facts with intent to evade customs duty.
