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>Commissioner improperly classified imported enterogermina without following General Rules for Interpretation under Customs Tariff Act 1975</h1> <h3>Sanofi Synthelabo India Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs- (Import) Air Cargo Complex Sahar Village, Andheri East, Mumbai And Commissioner of Customs- (Import) Air Cargo Complex Sahar Village, Andheri East, Mumbai Versus Sanofi Synthelabo India Pvt Ltd</h3> Sanofi Synthelabo India Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs- (Import) Air Cargo Complex Sahar Village, Andheri East, Mumbai And Commissioner of ... Issues Involved:The legality and propriety of the classification adopted by Commissioner of Customs regarding import of goods, appeal by jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs regarding fine in lieu of confiscation, correctness of the appellant's claim for classification under declared heading.Classification Issue:The appeal by M/s Sanofi Synthelabo India Pvt Ltd concerns the classification adopted by the Commissioner of Customs regarding the import of 'enterogermina (bacillus clausal spores)'. The appellant claimed conformity with a specific tariff item but the adjudicating authority opined that the goods were more appropriately classified under a different tariff item. This led to the denial of eligibility for a notification and the imposition of differential duty, interest, and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. The issue was whether the classification was properly set aside without establishing the availability of a more appropriate heading for the goods.Legal Grounds for Appeal:The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a previous case established that fine in lieu of confiscation under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 is contingent upon goods being physically amenable for vesting with the Central Government. As a result, the appeal by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs had no legal ground for being sustained.Proper Application of Law:The General Rules for Interpretation of the Import Tariff play a crucial role in classification and re-classification of goods. The impugned order revised the classification without proper application of these rules, leading to the conclusion that the matter should be remanded to the original authority for a fresh decision in compliance with the relevant legal framework.Judicial Precedents:The burden of proof in classification matters lies squarely upon the Revenue department. If the department intends to classify goods differently from the claim made by the assessee, they must adduce proper evidence to discharge this burden. Failure to do so can result in the appeal being allowed, as seen in previous judicial determinations.In conclusion, the appellate tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee by way of remand, while dismissing the appeal of the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs. The classification issue was deemed to require a fresh decision in accordance with the General Rules for Interpretation of Import Tariff.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
