Tribunal upholds Countervailing Duty on imported rubber tires under EXIM Code

The tribunal upheld the levy of Countervailing Duty on imported used rubber tyres, classified as pneumatic tyres under EXIM Code 40122000.10. The appellants' appeal against the penalty imposition was rejected, with the tribunal deeming the fine amount reasonable based on the goods' value. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the redemption fine but upheld other aspects of the adjudication order. The tribunal affirmed the decision, dismissing the appeal and maintaining the confiscation of goods and differential duty payment.

---

---

Issues: Classification of imported goods under CTH 4012.90, levy of differential duty, confiscation of goods, penalty imposition, and redemption fine reduction.

In this case, the appellants filed a bill of entry in April 2000 for the import of used tyres, declaring an assessable value of Rs. 2,52,280/- and classifying them under CTH 4012.90. However, upon examination, it was discovered that the tyres were meant for heavy and light commercial vehicles, falling under EXIM Code 40122000.10, which were restricted items for import. The goods' value was found to be less than the permitted CIF value per tyre of US$ 175, resulting in a differential value of Rs. 18,252/- and a differential duty payable of Rs. 12,244/-. The Joint Commissioner confiscated the goods with an option for redemption upon payment of a fine of Rs. 27,000/- and imposed a penalty equal to the differential duty demand. The Commissioner (Appeals) later set aside the penalty, reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 5,000/-, and upheld the rest of the adjudication order, leading to the current appeal.

During the hearing, the appellants argued that Countervailing Duty (CVD) should not be levied on old and used rubber tyres, but only on old and used pneumatic tyres. However, the tribunal found that the imported tyres were indeed used rubber tyres, which are considered pneumatic tyres. Since there was no contention that the rubber tyres imported were not pneumatic tyres, the tribunal upheld the levy of CVD. Additionally, the tribunal deemed the imposed fine amount as reasonable given the goods' value, and therefore, decided not to interfere with the impugned order, ultimately rejecting the appeal. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Vice-President.

---