Imported goods denied concessional CVD benefit due to non-compliance with description requirements under Notification No. 2/2011-C.E.

The Tribunal upheld the denial of concessional CVD benefit as the imported goods did not meet the description requirements specified in Notification No. 2/2011-C.E. The appeal was rejected due to inconsistency between the goods imported and the criteria for concessional rate eligibility under the notification.

---

---

Issues:
1. Denial of concessional CVD benefit under Notification No. 2/2011-C.E.
2. Classification of imported goods as per the notification requirements.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported goods declared as "M-1 Haier Wireless Data Modem-Wi-Fi and battery colo" and claimed abatement in MRP value by 35%. The assessing authority assessed customs duty on the bill of entry without extending the benefit of concessional CVD under Notification No. 2/2011-C.E., resulting in excess payment of customs duty/CVD. The appellant ex-bonded the consignment to avoid demurrage. The appeal was filed challenging the assessment, citing arbitrary assessment of customs duty at 12.5% CVD instead of the concessional rate of 6% under the notification, leading to excess payment. The subsequent consignment in Mumbai was assessed at the concessional rate, highlighting inconsistency in assessment.

2. The Tribunal reviewed the denial of concessional CVD benefit under Notification No. 2/2011-C.E. The notification allows concessional rate for "Wireless data modem cards with PCMCIA or USB or PCI express ports." The imported goods, described as "M-1 Haier Wireless Data Modem-Wi-Fi and battery colo," did not meet the notification's description requirements. The appellant argued for the benefit based on a subsequent consignment in Mumbai being allowed the concessional rate. However, the Tribunal noted that the imported goods lacked the necessary facilities specified in the notification, making them ineligible for the concessional rate. The goods were complete duty modems, not modem cards eligible for the benefit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of concessional CVD benefit as the imported goods did not meet the description requirements specified in the notification. The appeal was rejected based on the inconsistency between the goods imported and the criteria for concessional rate eligibility under the notification.

---