Revenue appeal dismissed as no penalty imposed for narrow woven fabric webbing classification dispute

CESTAT New Delhi upheld Commissioner's order dismissing Revenue's appeal regarding classification of imported narrow woven fabric webbing. While confirming duty demand for extended period with interest, tribunal held no penalty under section 114A could be imposed as Commissioner found no collusion, willful mis-statement or suppression of facts. Confiscation under section 111(m) deemed academic exercise since penalty already paid and uncontested. Section 114AA penalty rejected as no evidence of knowingly false declarations, with goods properly examined and assessed before clearance. Revenue's appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are:
1. Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
2. Confiscation of goods under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Imposition of penalties under sections 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.

Classification of Imported Goods:
The Revenue appealed against the Order-in-Original that re-classified "Narrow Woven Fabric Webbing" under a different Customs Tariff Item. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand under section 28(4) but did not impose penalties under sections 114A and 114AA. The Revenue argued that penalties should have been imposed as the duty was confirmed under section 28(4). However, the respondent contended that there was no evidence of collusion or willful mis-statement, hence penalty under section 114A was not applicable. The Tribunal noted that the demand was confirmed based on a concession by the respondent, not due to the presence of collusion or mis-statement. As penalties are separate from the charge of duty, and as no evidence of collusion was found, the appeal was dismissed.

Confiscation of Goods:
The Revenue contended that the goods should have been liable for confiscation under section 111(m) as proposed in the show cause notice. However, the Commissioner did not hold the goods liable for confiscation under section 111(m) and imposed a penalty under section 112(a)(i). The respondent argued that there was no collusion or suppression of facts, hence penalty under section 114A was not applicable. The Tribunal found that the goods were not confiscated as they were not available, and the penalty under section 112 had already been paid by the respondent. As the penalty had been imposed and paid, there was no need to order confiscation at this stage.

Imposition of Penalties:
The Revenue raised concerns about the non-imposition of penalties under sections 114A and 114AA. The respondent argued that penalty under section 114AA was not applicable as there was no evidence of false or incorrect declarations. The Tribunal examined the purpose of section 114AA, which applies to both imports and exports, and found that the Commissioner's decision not to impose penalties was justified. As there was no evidence of fraudulent declarations, penalties under sections 114A and 114AA were not warranted. Therefore, the impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

---