Imagine Marketing Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
The CESTAT, Mumbai considered appeals concerning the classification of “Wireless Bluetooth Earphones/Earbuds/Headphones/Headsets.” The appellants had classified the imported goods under Tariff Item 8517 6290 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 57/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017. The Department reclassified the goods under Tariff Item 8518 3000/8518 3011 and denied the exemption. The appellants challenged the impugned orders primarily on the ground that the show cause notices were barred by limitation.
The appellants submitted that the issue of classification had already been considered by different Benches of the Tribunal, resulting in conflicting decisions. They relied upon the decision of the Chennai Bench in Redington Ltd. Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Chennai — 2026 (5) TMI 1611 — CESTAT CHENNAI, which classified the goods under Tariff Item 8517 6290. They also referred to the Delhi Bench decision in G-Mobile Devices Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Air Cargo Complex (Import), New Delhi — 2026 (4) TMI 1850 — CESTAT NEW DELHI, which accepted the Department’s classification under Tariff Item 8518 3000/8518 3011. The appellants further submitted that, by order dated 07.07.2026, the Chennai Bench had referred the classification issue to the President of the Tribunal for constitution of a Larger Bench. According to the appellants, in view of these divergent judicial views, allegations of wilful misstatement or suppression of facts could not be sustained so as to justify invocation of the extended limitation period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
