Customs classification of mobile phone covers must follow tariff rules, not exemption notifications or administrative policy.

Mobile phone front, middle, battery and back covers and housings were treated as parts of mobile phones, classifiable under CTH 85177090 rather than as plastic articles under CTH 39209999, because the goods had undergone substantial working and Chapter 39 exclusion for Section XVI articles applied. An exemption notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act and a Meity policy could not the tariff heading; classification had to follow the Customs Tariff Act and interpretative rules. A demand under Section 28 was not barred merely because no appeal was first filed against self-assessment. Confiscation under Section 111(m) and penalty under Section 112 were also unsustainable where the dispute was only one of classification.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether mobile phone front covers, middle covers, battery covers, back covers and related housings were classifiable under CTH 85177090 or CTH 39209999; (ii) whether an exemption notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 or a Meity policy could determine tariff classification; (iii) whether a demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be raised without first filing an appeal against self-assessment; and (iv) whether the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) and penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Issue (i): Whether mobile phone front covers, middle covers, battery covers, back covers and related housings were classifiable under CTH 85177090 or CTH 39209999.

Analysis: Classification was held to be part of assessment under the Customs Act, to be determined in self-assessment by the importer, in re-assessment by the proper officer, and in appeal by the appellate authorities. On the facts, the imported covers were undisputedly parts of mobile phones and were manufactured through processes including extrusion, printing, vapor deposition, thermoforming and CNC milling. These processes took the goods beyond mere plates, sheets, film, foil or strip of plastics not further worked within Chapter Note 10 to Chapter 39. Since Chapter Note 2(s) to Chapter 39 excludes articles of Section XVI, goods correctly classifiable as parts of mobile phones could not be placed in Chapter 39. The covers were also not shown to be general plastic articles displacing their character as parts of mobile phones.

Conclusion: The covers and housings were classifiable under CTH 85177090 and not under CTH 39209999, in favour of the assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether an exemption notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 or a Meity policy could determine tariff classification.

Analysis: An exemption notification operates as conditional subordinate legislation granting or withdrawing exemption after classification is determined; it does not itself fix the tariff heading. Likewise, a Meity policy is an executive instrument and not a quasi-judicial assessment or appealable determination. Tariff classification must be made only under the Customs Tariff Act and the relevant interpretative rules, and not by reference to an exemption notification or administrative policy.

Conclusion: Neither the exemption notification nor the Meity policy could determine classification, in favour of the assessees.

Issue (iii): Whether a demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be raised without first filing an appeal against self-assessment.

Analysis: Self-assessment is an assessment order and is appealable under Section 128. However, the power under Section 28 is an independent statutory power to review and recover duty not levied, short levied, not paid or short paid, and it is not confined to cases where the self-assessment is first appealed against. The line of authority on refund proceedings did not control the power to issue a demand notice under Section 28. Accordingly, the absence of an appeal against self-assessment did not bar the notices.

Conclusion: The demand under Section 28 was not invalid for want of a prior appeal against self-assessment, against the assessees on this issue.

Issue (iv): Whether the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) and penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis: The Bill of Entry forms part of self-assessment, and a classification dispute does not amount to a misdeclaration attracting confiscation merely because the importer's self-assessment is later held incorrect. The importer is not obliged to anticipate the classification that the proper officer may later adopt. As the only dispute was over classification, and not a false factual declaration of the type contemplated by Section 111(m), confiscation could not be sustained; without confiscability, penalty under Section 112 also could not stand.

Conclusion: Confiscation and penalty were not sustainable, in favour of the assessees.

Final Conclusion: The impugned reclassification, duty demand, confiscation and penalty orders were set aside, and the appeals succeeded with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Tariff classification is determined only under the Customs Act and Customs Tariff Act through the assessment process, and an administrative notification or policy cannot alter that classification; a mere classification dispute in self-assessment does not by itself attract confiscation under Section 111(m) or penalty under Section 112.

---