2020 (1) TMI 595 - AT - Customs

Tribunal upholds goods classification, denies exemption, dismisses appeal on misrepresentation & show cause validity.

The Tribunal upheld the department's classification of the goods under 8413-30-90, denied the appellant's eligibility for exemption under notification ... Classification of imported goods - imports of fuel pump unit assembly - whether classified under the tariff item 8409-91-99 of first schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or otherwise? - Department noticed that the appellant has wrongly classified the goods and that Rule 126 of General Rules of Interpretation (GIR) of harmonized system for classification of goods have not been followed - benefit of N//N. 85/2004-CUS dated 31.08.2004 - time limitation. HELD THAT:- No doubt, the fuel pump unit assembly of the appellant is meant to be used with the spark ignition internal combustion engine but admittedly it is such part which is rather a pump. It is the admission of the appellant that the impugned goods are responsible for pumping fuel into cylinders of an engine of two-wheelers while offering, control over the amount of fuel pumped into the engine and the power generator. Thus admittedly, this part of engine is a pump. Pumps are, specifically, classified under sub-heading 8413 - A conjoint reading of description of goods for tariff item 8413 and 8409 makes it abundantly clear that all pumps meant for fuel lubricating or cooling medium for internal combustion piston engines are classified under 841330 and all other pumps for internal combustion piston engines for other than lubricating or cooling medium are classified under 84133090 - Thus, the tariff Act itself gives a clear cut distinction between a good which is merely a part or the part which can, specifically, be classified as a pump. Principles of classification of parts of machines of chapter 84, as contained in section note 2 to section 16 of the Customs Tariff - HELD THAT:- It becomes clearer that the items which are specifically included in CTH 8413 are clearly excluded from CTH 8409 irrespective they are used solely or principally with the engines of heading 8407 and 8408 - the fuel injecting pumps are neither an accessory not the spare part of the engine of a motor vehicle. These pumps are classifiable only under heading 8413, the parts of these pumps are classifiable only under heading 841391. Benefit of N/N. 85/2004-CUS dated 31.08.2004 - HELD THAT:- Notification 85 of 2004 has no such entry which includes items of chapter 8413. We are of the firm opinion that the appellant has wrongly availed the benefit of exemption of 50% BCD of the products imported by him by wrongly classifying them as the parts solely and exclusively used with the engines ignoring the specific entry for classification of pumps. There is no denial that the goods which are classified by him as parts are actually meant to function as pumps. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The appellant has wrongly classified his goods classifiable under CTH 831330 intentionally under Customs Tariff Heading of 840991 with an intend to wrongly avail the benefit of exemption of 50% of BCD. It is worth taking a note of the fact that the bill of entry was filed under self-assessment regime and the importer need to be doubly sure that what they are claiming is legally correct - classifying the product under a wrong entry continuously for as many as more than 50 bills of entry cannot be an act of ignorance - the department has committed no error while invoking the extended period of limitation and, therefore, the show cause notice cannot be held to be barred by time. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and eligibility for exemption under notification 85/2004-CUS.Analysis:1. Classification Dispute: The appellant imported fuel pump unit assembly classified under 8409-91-99 but the department argued for classification under 8413-30-90. The department relied on the description of goods and HSN code to support their classification. The Tribunal analyzed the nature and function of the goods, emphasizing that the pumps are specifically designed for use with internal combustion engines. The Tribunal concluded that the goods should be classified under 8413 as they are fuel pumps for internal combustion engines.2. Legal Interpretation: The Tribunal referred to the General Rules of Interpretation (GIR) under the harmonized system for classification of goods. They highlighted that the classification should be determined according to the terms of headings and any related section or chapter notes. The Tribunal also examined Section note 2 of the Customs Tariff, emphasizing that parts constituting an article should be classified in their appropriate heading.3. Precedent and Explanatory Notes: The Tribunal cited a previous case and HSN explanatory notes to support their classification decision. They emphasized the importance of relying on chapter notes and explanatory notes for accurate classification. The Tribunal also noted that the goods in question were not included in the exemption notification 85/2004, further supporting their classification decision.4. Intentional Misrepresentation: The Tribunal found that the appellant wrongly classified the goods under 8409-91-99 to avail the exemption of 50% BCD. They concluded that the appellant's actions constituted intentional misrepresentation, as they continuously classified the goods incorrectly in multiple bills of entry. The Tribunal upheld the department's decision and dismissed the appeal.5. Time Barred Show Cause Notice: The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that the show cause notice was barred by time. They emphasized that the department correctly invoked the extended period of limitation due to the intentional misrepresentation by the appellant. Therefore, the show cause notice was deemed valid.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the department's classification of the goods under 8413-30-90, denied the appellant's eligibility for exemption under notification 85/2004, and dismissed the appeal based on intentional misrepresentation and the validity of the show cause notice.