Hyundai Transys India Pvt. Ltd Vs Commissioner of Customs (Imports) (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that the classification of the goods cannot be said to be one involving suppression of facts and willful mis-statement. Hence, invocation of extended period of limitation under section 28(4) of Customs Act not justified.
Facts- Specific intelligence gathered by the SIIB, Chennai, alleged that the appellant was importing goods namely ‘Polyurethane Sheet’ and have misclassified the same under CTI 3926 9099 and availed BCD exemption by availing FTA benefit under Notification No. 152/2009 instead of correctly classifying the said items under CTI 3921 1390 for which the above notification was not available.
After due process of law, Adjudicating Authority rejected the classification adopted by the appellant and reclassified the goods and confirmed the short-payment of duty amounting to Rs.6,44,34,643/-, along with interest. He also imposed an equal penalty u/s. 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 apart from confiscating goods valued at Rs.49,64,14,824/- with an option of redeeming the same by payment of redemption fine of Rs.2.50 crores. Hence the present appeal.
Conclusion- In this case there has been no mis-declaration of description and the understanding of the importer on the classification of the goods cannot be held to be a mis-declaration just because it did not tally with the views of the department.
