Appellant wins classification dispute for imported goods under CTI 6102 30 10, CTI 6202 9390, CTI 6210 5000

The CESTAT NEW DELHI ruled in favor of the appellant regarding classification of imported goods under CTI 6102 30 10, CTI 6202 9390 and CTI 6210 5000. The tribunal held that section 28(4) of the Customs Act could not be invoked as there was no willful suppression of facts, only mis-classification. The appellant had declared goods details which were physically examined, and customs authorities had previously permitted clearance under the same classification. The Commissioner's order dated 24.02.2023 established no willful suppression existed, making sections 111 and 114A also inapplicable. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Items, invocation of section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, willful suppression of facts, mis-classification, appeal against Commissioner (Appeals) order.

Classification of Imported Goods:
The appellant, engaged in apparel business, imported goods classified as Knitted Jackets under HSN Code 6104 33 00, Woven Jackets and PU Jackets under HSN Code 6204 33 00. Customs Officers reclassified the goods as Knitted Jackets under HSN (T) 6102 3010, Woven Jackets under HSN (T) 6202 9390, and PU Jackets under HSN Code (T) 6210 5000 due to full opening front with a zipper fastener. Appellant paid differential duty and requested clearance, followed by a waiver of show cause notice.

Invocation of Section 28(4) of the Customs Act:
The Additional Commissioner invoked section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, confirming differential duty demand of Rs. 12,71,462/- with penalty and confiscation under section 111(m). Appellant appealed to Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the order on 21.06.2021. Appellant contended that the provision could not be invoked due to a genuine mistake promptly rectified upon department's suggestion, citing a similar precedent.

Willful Suppression of Facts and Mis-Classification:
Appellant argued that the term "jacket" lacked a specific definition in Tariff Act chapters but was classified based on Explanatory Notes defining jackets and blazers. They highlighted the absence of willful suppression, as goods were physically examined, and previous clearances were under the same classification. Commissioner's previous order in a similar matter emphasized the absence of willful suppression, leading to the acceptance of reclassification and payment of differential duty.

Appeal Against Commissioner (Appeals) Order:
Appellant challenged the Commissioner (Appeals) order dated 21.06.2021, citing a previous order where the Commissioner held that section 28(4) could not be invoked due to mis-classification without willful suppression. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order based on the findings in the previous order, allowing the appeal.

This comprehensive analysis covers the classification of imported goods, the invocation of section 28(4) of the Customs Act, willful suppression of facts, mis-classification issues, and the subsequent appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order, providing a detailed insight into the legal judgment.

---