TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (4) TMI 975
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2012 (at serial no 428A) and notification no 50/2017-Cus dated 30th June 2017 (at serial no 502), for reassessment of 'cameras' to duties of customs of Rs. 461,38,438 to recover Rs. 1,86,19,246 as duty short-paid under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962, along with applicable interest under section 28 AA of Customs Act, 1962, in 24 bills of entry filed between October 2016 and August 2070 on import of goods declared to be valued at Rs. 15,36,69,611 besides confiscating the said goods under section 111 (m) of Customs Act, 1962 though without imposition of any redemption fine. Another consignment, under import, declared in bill of entry no. 3308840/20.09.2017 to be valued at Rs. 1,07,13,145 was held as liable for confiscation under section 111 (m) of Customs Act, 1962 but permitted to be redeemed on payment fine of Rs. 20,00,000 and differential duty of Rs. 44,14,567. Penalty of Rs. 4,61,38,438 imposed on the importer under section 114A of Customs Act, 1962 and penalties of Rs. 10,00,000 each under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 was imposed on S/Shri Ketan C Patel, Sainath J Shetty, Nitin K Karekar and Prashant Bijai as well as Rs. 4,50,00,000 each under section 114AA of Customs Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nded that circular no. 334/5/2015-TRU dated 30th April 2015 of Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC), intended to clarify the scope of exemption notification claimed by them after exclusion of the explanation therein, allows every kind of camera conforming to the description without being qualified by any specification as it did till then. It was also contended that circular no. 32/2007-Cus dated 10th September 2007 of Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC), intended to clarify the goods covered by notification no. 25/2005-Cus dated 1st March 2005 (at serial no. 13), and not claimed by them, had been wrongly relied upon in the impugned order. Citing the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Teleservices Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs [2006 (194) ELT 11 (SC)] holding that circular cannot impose restriction or limitation not included in a notification and on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in Inter Continental (India) v. Union of India [2003 ELT (154) 37 (Guj)] upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, he argued that application of non-existent specifications is improper. 4. Learned Counsel contended that the decision of the Tribunal in Creative Peripher....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29. This apart, classification of goods is a matter relating to chargeability and the burden of proof is squarely upon the Revenue. If the Department intends to classify the goods under a particular heading or sub- heading different from that claim by the assessee, the Department has to produce proper evidence and discharge the burden of proof. In the present case the said burden has not been discharged at all by the Revenue......' and in Hindustan Ferodo Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bombay [(1997) 2 SCC 677] that 'It is not in dispute before us as it cannot be, that owners of establishing that the said drinks fell within Item No. 22 lay on the Revenue. Revenue has led no evidence. The onus was not discharged, therefore, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the evidence that was produced on behalf of the appellant, the appeal should nevertheless have been allowed.' and, in the event of feeling so to do, to justify denial of the said exemption notification which is restricted to a certain category of 'digital cameras' of the range enumerated in the tariff item adopted by the appellant. Specifically, Learned Authorized Representative would have to justify the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n in the notification claimed in those bills of entry. 7. It was also held in the impugned order that 'equipment type approval (ETA)', issued by Wireless Planning and Coordination wing of Ministry of Communications, mandated for import of any wireless device has described it as 'video camera' and the absence of HSN code in invoices issued to other dealers of the same product indicated their intention all too well and the acceptance of classification determined by the customs authorities in an import effected by the appellant at Nhava Sheva evidence articulates deliberate intent to misdeclare the classification for claiming exemption from duty. 8. Learned Authorised Representative has made several submissions on the technical specification of 'digital still image video camera' specified in the notification claimed in the bill of entry for entitlement to 'duty-free' import and which, being more restricted than the description corresponding to the classification claimed in the bill of entry, is not relevant to the denial of exemption by disturbing the very same classification as well as his opinion on the deficiencies in the order of the Tribunal cited by Learned Counsel in supp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....corresponding to tariff item 8525 8090 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In the absence of discharge of the onus referred to supra, not by picking holes in the classification claimed by importers but by establishing the correctness of the classification adopted by the customs authorities, reliance placed upon the material from the website of the manufacturer, the deliberations of the European commission or the proposal of the European Union at the negotiations on the 'Information Technology Agreement (ITA 1) will not have any effect on the resolution of this dispute here. 11. The appellant has claimed the benefit of notification no. 12/2012-Cus dated 17th March 2012 (at serial no 428A) for imports effected against bills of entry filed before 1st July 2017 and notification no. 50/2017-Cus dated 30th June 2017 (at serial no. 502) thereafter. The eligibility for the notification is, first and foremost, claim of classification within the description corresponding to tariff item 8525 8020 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and, thereafter, to conformity with 'digital still image video camera' describing the article to which the exemption may be allowed. It mus....