TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal partially allowed, setting aside confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under CTH 72. No malafide intent found.</h1> <h3>M/s. Goyal Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), Chennai</h3> M/s. Goyal Metal Industries Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import), Chennai - 2018 (359) E.L.T. 236 (Tri. - Chennai) Issues Involved:Classification of imported goods under CTH 72 or CTH 73, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty.Classification Issue:The appellants imported MS Re-rolling scrap declared as 'MS Rolling Material consisting of used rails' under CTH 72, but the department argued for classification under CTH 73 due to the requirement of a license for importing used rails. The original authority classified the goods under CTH 73, leading to confiscation and penalty. The appellant contested only the redemption fine and penalty, citing Circulars from the Board supporting their initial classification under CTH 72. The appellant argued that the change in classification under Circular No. 8/2006-Cus. was not intentional, especially as it was challenged in court. The Tribunal found the classification issue to be doubtful due to conflicting Circulars and judicial positions, concluding that the appellant did not act dishonestly.Redemption Fine and Penalty Issue:The appellant argued that the redemption fine and penalty were unjustified since there was no malafide intent in the initial classification under CTH 72, supported by a Board Circular. The department maintained that the correct classification should have been declared based on the Circular issued in 2006. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, finding the confiscation unjustified and setting aside the redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal held that the goods were not liable for confiscation, modifying the impugned order accordingly.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty, based on the lack of dishonest intent by the appellant and the conflicting Circulars and judicial positions regarding the classification of the imported goods.
TaxTMI 