Case Law Details
Commissioner of Central Excise And Customs Vs Reliance Infrastructure Ltd. (CESTAT Hyderabad)
Facts- The assessee imported various equipment from Reliance Infra Projects and Zhejiang and cleared them by filing 36 Bills of Entry (BOE) with the Customs at Kakinada. BOE filed in the Customs EDI system are either marked to an officer for assessment or marked for examination of goods or both or may be cleared without either assessment by the officer or examination of the goods by the Customs Risk Management System.
These 36 Bills of Entry were facilitated by the RMS, i.e., cleared without assessment or examination by the officers. As per the practice, these Bills of Entry were audited post clearance and it was noticed that there was a variation between the classification of the goods in the Bill of Entry under the Customs Tariff and the classification in the supplier’s documents such as invoice, packing list and Country of origin certificate under the Harmonised System of Nomenclature.
Conclusion- The fact that a particular HSN was mentioned by the overseas supplier in the import documents is certainly a relevant factor in examining the case but the HSN mentioned by such supplier does not estop either the importer or the proper officer or the adjudicating authority from classifying the goods under any other heading. Otherwise, anyone can ask the supplier to indicate an incorrect but convenient HSN in the invoice and packing list and reduce the duty liability; different imports of identical goods may be sent by suppliers indicating different HSNs resulting in different classifications of identical goods.
Thus, if it is held that HSN in the supplier’s documents binds the importer or the assessing officer or the adjudicating authority in classification of goods, as the Revenue seems to suggest, it can lead to absurd results with disastrous consequences for the Revenue itself.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
