2011 (2) TMI 818

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... fine and penalty imposed on the appellants. He states that the impugned goods imported by the appellants were described as follows along with the Customs Tariff Heading numbers in the Bill of Entry filed by them:- CTH No. Description of the items 26169090 Planar Target-Silver-AG 3099*28*12.7 Mono Block Version -3N7-1 No. 26080000 Rotative Target-Zinc-Anal Type Mag or Qct Dim 3191*9/13 MM 3N Direct Cast - 4 Nos. 25059000 Rotative Target - Silica Siai Type Vac-Mag or Qct Dim 3191 *9/13 MM Sprayed - 6 Nos. 3. Both sides agree that on examination, the description indicated by the appellants have not been changed by the assessing officer but only the goods were found to be classifiable under different Chapters viz., 7....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot be attributed to them nor confiscation and imposition of penalty can be resorted to. 4. Heard the Ld. DR, Ms. Indira Sisupal, who supports the impugned order. She states that the cited decisions are not applicable to this case as the appellants sought clearance of the impugned goods under the Risk Management Scheme and it was obligatory on their part to declare the correct classification and pay the correct rate of duty. She states that since a wrong classification was indicated and duty exemption was claimed by indicating such wrong classification, the appellants cannot escape the redemption fine and penalty which have been rightly imposed in respect of the impugned goods. She states that under the computerized EDI system, unless a p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....likelihood of revenue loss is well founded. But, I find that no change in the law has been made to take into account such apprehension, and hence, however well founded the same may be, in the absence of any legal change, I am unable to accept either the Ld. DR's argument or the finding of the adjudicating Commissioner that the ratio of the case laws cited by the appellants will not be applicable to the facts of this case. It has been the consistent view of the various Benches of the Tribunal that the determination of the tariff heading and the applicable rate of duty is the ultimate job of the customs authorities and if an assessee tentatively indicates a wrong classification according to his understanding, then no motive can be attributed ....