TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1360
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on of the goods in question and consequential reliefs has been rejected and the Order-In-Original dated 21.01.2004 upheld. 1. The facts of the case are briefly noted below:- a) The appellant had imported, inter alia, Water Treatment and Distribution System comprising several packages vide Bill of Entry dated 22.11.1986. The said goods had been classified under tariff item 3209.10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which tariff entry had been mentioned by the appellant in the aforesaid Bill of Entry. b) The above goods comprising 116 packages were warehoused in the Customs Bonded Warehouse within the appellant's factory. c) One of the above 116 packages containing two centrifugal pumps were found missing before....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....emanded to the lower appellate authority . . . " g) Pursuant to the aforesaid directions by this Tribunal, the impugned Order-In-Appeal dated 07.04.2008 has been passed. The appellant is, thus, before us complaining of illegality in the said Order-in-Appeal. 2. Shri Indranil Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant, strainuously argued that the correct classification of the goods in question was under tariff 8413.70 and not 3209.10, as claimed by the Department. He took us through the records of the case, particularly Serial No. 41 of the Bill of Entry dated 22.11.1986 along with the Packing Lists of the supplier. It was his contention that neither the two centrifugal pumps taken separately nor an entire Water Treatment and Distribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Supreme Court on 09.10.2017 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3381-3400 of 1998. Lastly, it was contended on behalf of the appellant, that the independent identity of the two centrifugal pumps lost/ pilfered had been established and that the said goods stood specifically identified, evidenced by the FIR dated 08.05.1987, Show Cause Notice dated 11.08.1987 etc. The learned counsel submitted copies of the said FIR as well as the subsequent Bill of Entry dated 23.07.1987, whereunder the two Centrifugal pumps had been re-imported and assessed to duty under tariff 8413.70. 3. On the other hand, the Learned DR, Shri S. Guha argued that the goods in question had been correctly classified under tariff 3209.10 and that no plausible reason had been shown fo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the relevant date was the date on which the said goods are actually removed from the warehouse. If this be the position in law, the Learned Adjudicating Authority could not have dismissed the claim for reclassification simply on the ground that the incident of pilferage /goods found missing had occurred after completion of the taxable event. In this regard, the decision of Kiran Spinning Mills - Vs - Collector, supra, relied on by Mr Banerjee, may be discussed in details. In the said case, the imported articles had been placed in the bonded warehouse after importation of the said goods between 4th April, 1977 and 20th September, 1978. Prior to clearance from the bonded warehouse after 4th October 1978, an Ordinance levying additional d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods had been lost/ pilfered after depositing in the warehouse but before clearance for home consumption on payment of duty. We agree with Mr. Banerjee that in the present case the legal act of import had not been completed till the goods in question had been cleared under Section 68 of the Act. The act of finding the goods missing/pilferage was, accordingly, not a post-import incident and its effect ought to have been considered while deciding the issue of re-classification. This point, however, need not detain us further as we believe that the appellant has a good case on merits. 6. When we enquired as to why the two centrifugal pumps ought to be classified under tariff 3209.10 and not tariff 8413.70, no specific answer was forthcoming ....