2018 (11) TMI 1700

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o. 884652/05.02.2010. The case against the appellant is that a similar consignment, imported against bill of entry no. 842944/07.01.2010, was, upon examination, found to comprise of 'parts of twin tub washing machines' but lacking in 'operating knobs'. The goods which were declared as classifiable under heading 8450 9010 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was re-classified by the original authority under heading 8450 1200 and the assessable value, re-determined in accordance with proviso to section 3(2) of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with duty liability of Rs. 6,99,253/-. The goods were confiscated but allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 5,00,000/- and penalties of Rs. 3,74,417/- imposed under section 114A of Customs Ac....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... '2. (a) Any reference in a heading to an article shall be taken to include a reference to that article incomplete or unfinished, provided that, as presented, the incomplete or unfinished articles has the essential character of the complete or finished article. It shall also be taken to include a reference to that article complete or finished (or falling to be classified as complete or finished by virtue of this rule), presented unassembled or disassembled.' from which, it would appear even though the goods are not presented in the final form for the purpose, rate of duty as finished goods should be applied. It is also not the case of the customs authorities that there has been a mis-declaration of the finished products. The obligati....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the manufacture of such goods. With chargeability, question of quantification of duty comes in. Classification decides the applicable rate. It is followed by valuation i.e. value on which the rate is to be applied. The concept of "classification" is, therefore, different from the concept of "valuation". In the present matter there is confusion in application of the aforestated two concepts by the Commissioner. In our view, the thrust of the show cause notice is towards undervaluation and not classification. This is made clear even in the order of the Commissioner vide para 53 which reads as under: "53. On consideration of the arguments of both sides and the facts on record I find that show cause notice dated 1-10-86 proposed class....