2017 (10) TMI 1271

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er customs tariff sub-heading no.84543090/84549000/84612019/84663020/84669310 and paid basic customs duty @ 7.5 % adv. After clearance of the goods the appellant's factory was taken up for post clearance audit, when it was observed that the imported goods were interchangeable tools classifiable under correct sub-heading 82073000/82075000 which were chargeable to basic custom duty @ 10% adv. Show cause notice was issued alleging misdeclaration of the imported goods. After due process of adjudication, the impugned order was passed in which the adjudicating authority ordered reclassification of the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 8207 and confirmed the demand of differential Customs Duty to the extent of Rs. 1,58,37,247/- along with interes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... has been submitted that the goods have been rightly classified and further that they were not classifiable as held by the department. v. The Adjudicating Authority has wrongly relied on Note-2 of Chapter 82 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. None of the goods imported were in the nature of parts. What was imported was dies sets and other goods. The appellant also sought to distinguish the case laws on which the adjudicating authority has relied. vi. 'Press dies' imported by the appellant cannot be regarded as interchangeable classifiable under 8207. vii. Extended period of limitation was not invocable, since the customs authorities used to examine the same goods imported by the appellant even prior to 08/04/2011 when self assessment was in....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ods can be identified as parts to be used for manufacture of tools/dies for M/s Honda Siel Car Ltd. Accordingly, all the goods imported are required to be classified under CTH 8207 in terms of Note-2 of chapter 82. 6. The Ld. Appellant strongly argued that such summary classification of the goods imported under 13 bills of entry cannot be done. They have submitted a table before the Adjudicating Authority as well as before us, giving the details, bill of entry- wise, of the goods imported, their classification as well as the nature of goods. They have also indicated where such goods have been used. The adjudicating authority does not seem to have taken cognizance of this detailed submission. Upon perusal of the table, we note that many goo....