TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 upholds penalty under Customs Act but remands case for correct classification.</h1> The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to misdeclaration but remanded the case for a correct ... Classification - Penalty for misdeclaration Issues: Classification of imported item as 'Brass Residue' or 'Brass scrap/waste,' mis-declaration, penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, confiscation under Section 111(m), challenge of test report, classification under Chapter 29 or Chapter 26, reliance on test report, disputed classification under Chapter 74, penalty confirmation, remand for correct classification.The judgment involves a dispute over the classification of an imported item declared as 'Brass Residue' in the Bill of Entry. The Additional Collector of Customs classified it as 'Brass scrap/waste' under Chapter 74 of the Customs Tariff Act, subject to 100% duty and CVD. The Collector alleged mis-declaration and attempted duty evasion, imposing a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, and ordering confiscation under Section 111(m. The basis for this decision was a test report from CRCL, Pusa Road, New Delhi, indicating the item was an alloy of copper, zinc, and nickel, with a high copper content contradicting the importer's claim of being 'Brass Residue.'The appellant argued that the item should be classified under Chapter 29 with the benefit of a specific notification, contending it was Brass Residue, not scrap. They challenged the classification under Chapter 74, citing the absence of a definition for Brass Residue and claiming the item did not fit the criteria for waste and scrap. The appellant also disputed any deliberate misdeclaration, pointing to supplier documents supporting the item's classification as Residue. They further claimed a loss of goods due to theft before clearance, seeking a duty deduction.The Department countered, relying on the unchallenged test report indicating the item was not Brass Residue but a metallic powder of sharings and drillings, primarily copper and nickel. The Department argued the item did not qualify as Residue under Chapter 26 due to its composition and origin from mechanical working of metals, supported by reference to relevant rulings.The Tribunal analyzed the test report findings, noting the item's composition and characteristics did not align with Brass Residue definitions. They rejected the appellant's arguments for Chapter 26 classification, emphasizing the item's nature and composition as per the test report. The Tribunal found the classification under Chapter 74 as unrefined copper or copper alloys unsuitable, requiring a reevaluation considering copper waste and scrap categories.Regarding the penalty imposed, the Tribunal upheld the Rs. 15,000 penalty under Section 112(a) due to the apparent misdeclaration. However, they remanded the matter for a correct classification determination under Chapter 74, highlighting the need for a fresh assessment considering the item's composition and characteristics as per the test report.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
