2024 (3) TMI 137 - AT - Customs

Brush cutters classified as hand tools under CTH 8467 8990, not agricultural machinery under CTH 8432 2990

Hikoki Power Tools India Pvt Ltd and Shri Dattatreya Joshi Vice President & Company Secretary Versus Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore

CESTAT Bangalore held that brush cutters are correctly classifiable under CTH 8467 8990 as hand tools, not under CTH 8432 2990 as agricultural machinery. ... Classification of goods - Importer declared the Goods as ‘Brush Cutters’ - classifiable under CTH 8467 8990 and not under CTH 8432 2990 as claimed in the respective Bill of Entry - Whether the extended period of limitation can be invoked for demanding duty pertaining to past clearance of the imported ‘brush cutters’ for the period 18.11.2009 to 28.11.2013 - penalty - with proposal for confiscation - HELD THAT:- On a plain reading of the relevant Tariff Entry and said explanatory notes under CTH 8432/8433 and 8467, it is clear that the products mentioned under CTH 8432/8433 are referring to ‘machineries’; ‘hand tools’ fall outside the scope of said entries; whereas hand tools explained in the explanatory note under CTH 8467 at sr. no 18 & 19 includes ‘brush cutters’, hence the product in dispute would fall under CTH 8467. The use of the product for Agricultural purpose cannot be the criterion for determination of the appropriate classification. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s O.K. Play (India) Ltd vs CCE [2005 (2) TMI 114 - SUPREME COURT] that use of an article as ‘Toys’ by children would not place in classification under ‘Toys’. It has been held in a series of cases that the explanations for classification of particular product mentioned in the HSN cannot be brushed aside in determining the correct classification of a product. Thus, the impugned goods in question i.e. ‘brush cutters’ is correctly classifiable under CTH 8467 8990 of CTA,1975. Past clearance of the imported goods - We find that the appellant declared the description of the goods correctly all along during the said period. Also, the goods were examined and assessed by the Department. Once the catalogue has been submitted by the appellant during the course of assessment, therefore, it is the responsibility of the Department to ascertain from the catalogue and description its classification under the appropriate heading. Also, it has been held in a series of cases that merely because the goods are not classified correctly under the appropriate heading by an assessee even though all facts are disclosed to the Department, the allegation of misdeclaration or suppression of fact cannot be invoked for recovery of duty for the past period. In our view, it is not necessary for the appellant to disclose on the relevant bills of entry that the goods are meant to be used as portable hand tools; the basis of classification as per explanatory notes of HSN. The stray cases of classification of the imported goods in five bills of entry under CTH 84678900 by the appellant, in our view, cannot lead to the conclusion that in other bills of entry, the goods were declared under wrong heading knowingly and to suppress the correct classification. The explanation furnished by the appellant that the mistake occurred when other goods of the same heading were imported along with the Brush cutters seems to be reasonable. Thus, invoking of extended period cannot be sustained and hence the demand is barred by limitation. Consequently, the penalties on the Appellants not sustainable. In the result, the impugned Order is modified to the extent of confirming classification of the impugned goods under CTH 84678990; confirming the demand and interest for the normal period and setting aside demand and interest for the extended period; also the penalty imposed on the Appellants is set aside. Appeals are disposed off accordingly. Issues Involved:1. Classification of imported goods.2. Invocation of extended period of limitation.3. Imposition of penalties on the appellants.Summary:Issue 1: Classification of Imported GoodsThe primary issue was whether the imported goods, namely 'brush cutters,' should be classified under CTH 8432 2990 or CTH 8467 8990 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants argued that the goods were meant for agricultural purposes and should be classified under CTH 8432 2990. They provided evidence such as product catalogues and approval certificates from the Department of Agricultural Engineering, GKVK. Alternatively, they suggested classification under CTH 8433, which covers grass mowers and other machinery for cleaning and sorting. The Revenue contended that CTH 8432 and 8433 cover only 'machinery' and not hand tools, which are specifically covered under CTH 8467. The Tribunal, after analyzing the relevant entries and HSN Explanatory Notes, concluded that the 'brush cutters' are correctly classifiable under CTH 8467 8990, as they fall under the category of portable tools for working in hand.Issue 2: Invocation of Extended Period of LimitationThe second issue was whether the extended period of limitation could be invoked for demanding duty for the past period from 18.11.2009 to 28.11.2013. The appellants argued that all facts were disclosed to the Department, and the goods were examined and assessed by the Customs Department. They contended that there was no intention to claim any wrong classification. The Tribunal found that the appellants had correctly described the goods in the relevant documents and that the goods were physically examined by the assessing officer. It held that merely because the goods were not classified correctly under the appropriate heading, the allegation of misdeclaration or suppression of facts could not be invoked for recovery of duty for the past period. Consequently, the demand for the extended period was barred by limitation.Issue 3: Imposition of PenaltiesThe final issue was the imposition of penalties on the appellants. The Tribunal concluded that since the demand for the extended period was not sustainable, the penalties imposed on the appellants were also not sustainable. Therefore, the penalties were set aside.Conclusion:The Tribunal modified the impugned order to confirm the classification of the goods under CTH 8467 8990 and confirmed the demand and interest for the normal period. However, it set aside the demand and interest for the extended period and the penalties imposed on the appellants. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.