2020 (2) TMI 1211 - AT - Customs

Customs classification and valuation dispute resolved in favor of appellant.

M/s. Zerogravity Aesthetics LLP, Versus Commissioner, Customs House Noida, Dadri

The case involved disputes over the classification and valuation of goods for customs purposes. The appellant's goods were initially confiscated and ... Import of prohibited/banned goods or not - Beauty & Make-up preparations - It appeared to Revenue that ICD, Dadri was not the port authorized for import of the said goods - absolute confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT:- Revenue has no where established that the said goods were banned for import into India. It is not examined whether the subject goods were authorized to be cleared at ICD Dadri because the appellant has opted to transship the goods at their cost to ICD Tughlakabad or ICD Patparganj. It is noted that, Customs Act has provided for trans-shipment of imported goods to the ports where import of such goods were allowed. Thus, the goods imported by appellants were not banned goods and therefore, the confiscation is set aside. Once the confiscation is set aside, question of redemption fine and penalty does not arise. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:1. Classification of goods and valuation for customs purposes2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty3. Trans-shipment of goods to authorized portsDetailed Analysis:1. The case involved two appeals concerning the classification and valuation of goods for customs purposes. The appellant declared the goods as Beauty & Make-up preparations under Customs Tariff Heading No. 33049990 with a declared value of around Rs. 38 lakhs in a self-assessed Bill-of-Entry filed on 19 February, 2018 at ICD, Dadri. However, it was discovered that ICD, Dadri was not the authorized port for import of the goods, leading to confiscation and penalty equal to the value of the goods through an Order dated 23 August, 2018. The appellant challenged this decision, and subsequent orders were passed by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and the Original Authority, ultimately valuing the goods at Rs. 78 lakhs. The appellant contested the enhanced valuation, citing the CIF value of the goods in the invoice and packing list. The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the goods were not banned for import into India, setting aside the confiscation and the imposition of redemption fine and penalty.2. The issue of confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty was addressed by the Tribunal in light of the appellant's argument that the goods were allowed for import in India and were not banned goods. The Tribunal noted that the Customs Act provides for trans-shipment of imported goods to authorized ports, where import of such goods is allowed. As the goods were not banned, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty. The Tribunal directed the Revenue to allow trans-shipment of the goods from ICD, Dadri to either ICD Tughlakabad or ICD Patparganj, as per the convenience of the Customs organization, with the cost to be borne by the importer. Upon trans-shipment, the Customs Authorities were instructed to examine the goods for clearance to home consumption.3. The issue of trans-shipment of goods to authorized ports was crucial in this case. The Tribunal emphasized that the Customs Act permits trans-shipment of imported goods to ports where import of such goods is allowed. In this context, the Tribunal allowed the appellant to transport the goods to ICD Tughlakabad or ICD Patparganj, suitable to the Customs organization, at the importer's cost. The decision to allow trans-shipment was based on the finding that the goods were not banned for import into India, and therefore, the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty were set aside. The Customs Authorities were directed to examine the goods for clearance to home consumption upon trans-shipment, ultimately allowing both appeals in favor of the appellant.