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>Tribunal Rules: No Extended Customs Limitation Due to Accurate Product Description in Incense Wood Powder Case.</h1> <h3>M/s. Shashi Industries Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore</h3> The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, determining that the extended period of limitation under the Customs Act, 1962, was not applicable due to ... Classification of imported JOSS Powder - to be classified under Chapter Heading 4405 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or not - benefit of the Notification No.46/2011-Cus. dated 01.06.2011 (Sl. No. 543) - whether extended period of limitation is application to the present set of facts and circumstances? - Suppression of facts or not - HELD THAT:- From the Bills of Entry enclosed by the appellant, the description of the product is clearly mentioned as ‘JOSS Powder (Wood Powder for making incense sticks)’, though the Chapter Heading is mentioned as 4405 in these Bills of Entry. Since the appellant has correctly described the products in the Bills of Entry, there is no mis-declaration or suppression of facts, hence, the extended period of limitation cannot be sustained. Appeal is allowed. Issues: Classification of imported product under Customs Tariff Act, 1975; Extended period of limitation under Customs Act, 1962; Misdeclaration or suppression of facts.The judgment pertains to an appeal against the reclassification of 'JOSS Powder' imported by the appellant under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant claimed the benefit of a specific notification but the Commissioner reclassified the product under a different chapter, denying the benefit. The appellant did not dispute the correct classification but challenged the extended period of limitation under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that there was no suppression of facts or misdeclaration. The Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in a similar case was cited to support the argument that there was no dishonest intention in the declaration made. The Authorized Representative supported the Commissioner's findings, stating that since the classification was not disputed, the appeal should be dismissed.The Tribunal upheld the correct classification of the product but focused on the issue of the extended period of limitation. The Tribunal noted that the product was correctly described in the Bills of Entry as 'JOSS Powder (Wood Powder for making incense sticks)'. Citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision, the Tribunal emphasized that there was no misdeclaration or suppression of facts as the appellant had provided full and correct particulars in the declaration. Therefore, the extended period of limitation could not be sustained, and the appeal was allowed.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that since there was no misdeclaration or suppression of facts in the product description provided in the Bills of Entry, the extended period of limitation under the Customs Act, 1962 could not be applied. The classification of the product was upheld, and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
