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>CESTAT sets aside customs classification orders due to inadequate reasoning and failure to follow section 128A(3) notice requirements</h1> <h3>Boston Scientific India Private Limited Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) Air Cargo Complex Sahar, Andheri (E), Mumbai</h3> The CESTAT Mumbai set aside orders regarding revision in classification of imported goods. The appellant had requested disposal based on arguments from ... Revision in classification of goods imported - appellant had not entered appearance in the personal hearing but had requested for disposal on the lines of argument preferred in the proceedings of appeal against the former bunch of bills of entry - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is on record that the ‘proper officer’ has not elaborated upon the cause for re-assessment and, yet, the first appellate authority took it upon itself to stand in for the ‘proper officer’ to offer reasons for adoption of the revised classification. This was undertaken without pre-requisite, in terms of second proviso to section 128A(3) of Customs Act of notice to importer and more especially warranted in circumstances of neither notice preceding the commencement of the dispute nor such proposal on record by way of appeal of Revenue. A notice issued in connection with some other imports, in the absence of any legal provision extending existing proceedings to future imports, is no substitute - The first appellate authority was as bereft of any material on record, to determine that the exercise of re-assessment conformed to enacted law in the form of General Rules for Interpretation of the Tariff appended to Customs Tariff Act and within the framework of judicially determined rules of engagement in disputes over classification. And just as it would be inappropriate for us to adjudge ‘free floating’ attempt at classification on the part of the first appellate authority, it was no less so for the first appellate authority to venture upon a decision on merit of assessment by the original authority. Affirmation of re-assessment without any material to go by invalidates it ab initio. The lack thereof should have prompted the first appellate authority to enforce compliance with consequence of revision. Not having done so invalidates the impugned order. The impugned orders set aside - the bills of entry before the original authority for disposal in the manner set out in section 17 of Customs Act - appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues:Appeals against revision in classification of goods imported, differential duty burden, denial of benefit of concession, absence of speaking order, breach of statutory responsibility, assessment process, principles of natural justice, re-assessment validity, self-assessment misdirection, compliance with statutory provisions.Analysis:The judgment involves 89 appeals by M/s Boston Scientific India Pvt Ltd challenging the revision in the classification of goods imported by them and seeking relief from the differential duty burden affirmed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). The appeals relate to 57 bills of entry for the period from October 2015 to June 2017. The appellant argued that the imported pacemakers should be classified under a specific tariff item to avail benefits of a customs duty notification. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence issued a show cause notice for recovery of differential duty, leading to the challenge before the first appellate authority.The appellant contended that the revision of goods classification without issuing a speaking order and denial of concession benefits violated the Customs Act. The first appellate authority upheld the re-assessment without providing adequate reasoning or following the principles of natural justice. The authority's decision to treat bills of entry as appealable without issuing separate orders was questioned, as it undermined the importer's right to accountability in assessment.The judgment highlighted the improper conduct of the 'proper officer' in failing to provide reasons for re-assessment and the first appellate authority's attempt to justify the revised classification without proper notice to the importer. The judgment emphasized the importance of self-assessment by importers under the Customs Act and criticized the authority's misdirection in exercising statutory authority. The lack of justification for the re-assessment rendered the impugned order invalid, leading to the setting aside of the orders and remanding the bills of entry for proper disposal in accordance with the Customs Act.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the procedural irregularities, breach of statutory responsibilities, and lack of compliance with the Customs Act in the re-assessment and classification of imported goods. The decision to set aside the impugned orders and remand the cases for proper disposal underscored the importance of adherence to statutory provisions and principles of natural justice in customs assessments.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
