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>Tribunal upholds appellant's goods classification, questions duty evasion claims</h1> <h3>Hosmroc Exim Versus Commissioner Of Customs, Bangalore</h3> The Tribunal upheld the appellant's classification of imported goods under CTH 70072190, noting the absence of misdeclaration in the seizure memo and ... Conditions / Security for Provisional release of the goods - mis-classification of goods - Toughened Glass Top (Part of Gas Stove) - whether the conditions imposed for the provisional release order by the adjudicating authority and upheld by the Ld. Commissioner(appeals), particularly the quantum of bank guarantee/ cash deposit and other conditions imposed to safeguard the interest of Revenue pending adjudication on the face of the allegation of mis-classification of ‘Toughened Glass Top – Part of Gas Stove’ is too harsh and warrants modification? HELD THAT:- At this stage, learned advocate for the appellant, on instruction, submitted that the Appellant since incurring heavy warehousing charges for the last one year, are willing to deposit the differential duty and execute bank guarantee / security deposit of Rs.3,00,000/-; also they have no objection to execute B-1 Bond for the estimated value of Rs.39,64,262/- as conditions for provisional release of the goods. In our considered opinion, keeping in view the principles of law settled in this regard, furnishing B-1 Bond for the estimated value of Rs.39,64,262/-, bank guarantee/cash deposit of Rs.3.00 lakhs, and deposit of the differential duty at the time of provisional release of goods would sufficiently safeguard the interest of revenue and meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent that on execution of B-1 Bond for the estimated value of Rs. Rs.39,64,262/-, furnishing of bank guarantee/cash deposit for Rs.3.00 lakhs and on deposit of differential duty by the Appellant, the adjudicating authority shall release the goods provisionally forthwith pending adjudication of the case. Appeal disposed off. Issues:1. Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.2. Seizure of goods alleging misclassification and evasion of duty.3. Provisional release conditions imposed by Customs Department.4. Appeal against provisional release order.Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975:The appellant, engaged in importing 'Toughened Glass Top - Part of Gas Stove,' had consistently classified the goods under CTH 70072190. The Customs Department suddenly proposed a change to CTH 7013, attracting a higher duty rate, leading to seizure of the goods. The appellant argued no misdeclaration or suppression of facts, citing past clearances under the same classification. The Tribunal noted the absence of misdeclaration in the seizure memo and upheld the appellant's classification history as a relevant factor.Seizure of goods alleging misclassification and evasion of duty:The Revenue contended that the correct classification should be CTH 7013, alleging suppression and undervaluation by the appellant. The Tribunal found no mention of value suppression in the seizure memo and questioned the basis for estimating the value for provisional release. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a clear link between misclassification and evasion, highlighting the absence of such evidence in this case.Provisional release conditions imposed by Customs Department:The Customs Department imposed stringent conditions for provisional release, including a high bond value and bank guarantee. The appellant argued that the conditions were arbitrary and unsustainable, citing past judgments. The Tribunal found the conditions excessive and modified them, requiring a reduced bond value, a lower bank guarantee amount, and deposit of the differential duty for provisional release.Appeal against provisional release order:The appellant appealed the provisional release order, challenging the conditions imposed. The Tribunal, after considering both parties' arguments, modified the conditions for provisional release, emphasizing the need to balance revenue protection with fairness to the appellant. The appeal was disposed of with the modified conditions for provisional release.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of classification, seizure, provisional release conditions, and the appeal outcome, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the Tribunal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
