Compuage Infocom Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Madras High Court)
Overview of the Case
The case before the Madras High Court, filed as a writ petition by Compuage Infocom Ltd. (Petitioner) against the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, challenged an order dated July 19, 2021. The petitioner sought to quash the order and obtain a consequential direction to extend the benefit of concessional customs duty under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus, related to the ASEAN-India Free Trade Agreement (FTA), for imported goods—specifically CCTV cameras (Sl. No. 1387) and Network Video Recorders (NVRs) (Sl. No. 1377).
The core of the dispute centered on the Customs Department’s rejection of the petitioner’s self-assessment regarding the classification of goods, and the subsequent failure by the adjudicating authority to consider the petitioner’s claim for a duty exemption based on the goods’ origin from Vietnam under the ASEAN-India FTA.
Facts and Classification Dispute
The petitioner filed a Bill of Entry dated April 21, 2021, classifying the imported CCTV cameras under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 85258010. The Customs audit found this classification improper, contending the correct classification should be CTH 85258090.
The respondents (Customs Department) justified the re-assessment by citing a judicial precedent involving the same petitioner on the classification of CCTV cameras.
- Judicial Precedent Cited: The Department pointed out that in an earlier, unrelated matter, the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) had rejected the petitioner’s claim and upheld the classification of CCTV cameras under CTH 85258090. This prior ruling was the sole basis used by the Customs authority for rejecting the self-assessment in the present case.
- Misdeclaration of NVRs: The Customs Department further argued that the petitioner’s claim for exemption on the NVRs was invalid due to a misdeclaration of the Harmonized System (HS) code. While the Certificate of Origin from the ASEAN region declared the HS code as 85219010, the petitioner had declared it as 85219090, leading the Department to reject the exemption under Sl. No. 1377 of the notification.
Violation of Natural Justice and Exemption Claim
