Case Law Details
Creative Newtech Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Import) (CESTAT Mumbai)
CESTAT Mumbai held that rejecting exemption benefit and duty demand u/s 28 of Customs Act, 1962 by reassessing ‘cameras’ under general and residual description i.e. ‘others’ under 8525 8090 instead of declared specified classification i.e. 8525 8020 is unjustified.
Facts- Impugning the order of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Air Cargo Complex (ACC), Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport (CSMIA), Mumbai, M/s Creative Newtech Ltd and other appellants challenge the adoption of rate of duty corresponding to tariff item 8525 8090 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, with consequent denial of notification no. 12/2012-Cus dated 17th March 2012 (at serial no 428A) and notification no 50/2017-Cus dated 30th June 2017 (at serial no 502), for reassessment of ‘cameras’ to duties of customs of ₹ 461,38,438 to recover ₹ 1,86,19,246 as duty short-paid under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962, along with applicable interest under section 28 AA of Customs Act, 1962, in 24 bills of entry filed between October 2016 and August 2070 on import of goods declared to be valued at ₹ 15,36,69,611 besides confiscating the said goods under section 111 (m) of Customs Act, 1962 though without imposition of any redemption fine. Another consignment, under import, declared in bill of entry no. 3308840/20.09.2017 to be valued at ₹ 1,07,13,145 was held as liable for confiscation under section 111 (m) of Customs Act, 1962 but permitted to be redeemed on payment fine of ₹ 20,00,000 and differential duty of ₹ 44,14,567.
Penalty of ₹ 4,61,38,438 imposed on the importer u/s. 114A of Customs Act, 1962 and penalties of ₹ 10,00,000 each u/s. 112 of Customs Act, 1962 was imposed on S/Shri Ketan C Patel, Sainath J Shetty, Nitin K Karekar and Prashant Bijai as well as ₹ 4,50,00,000 each u/s. 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 on S/Shri Ketan C Patel, Sainath J Shetty, Nitin K Karekar and Prashant Bijai are also under challenge in these five appeals.
Conclusion- In the absence of a finding in the impugned order that could, possibly, place the impugned goods within such general, and residual, description of ‘others’, the responsibility of customs authorities to initiate rejection of a declared classification has not been fulfilled. The declared classification, against tariff item 8525 8020 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, cannot be substituted in these circumstances. There is nothing on record to indicate that the imported goods do not conform to the description that entitles them to the benefit of exemption in the impugned notification. The rescinding of the Explanation therein has done away with any technical specification that may, at some in the past, have served to segregate ‘digital still image video camera’ as eligible and ineligible for the exemption.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
