2008 (9) TMI 212

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., Chennai :- (a) I reject the declared classification of the goods "48F Optical Fibre Cables" imported vide Bills of Entry Nos. 331766 dated 7-11-2006 and 332377, dated 8-11-2006, made under CTH 8544 70 90 and deny the benefit of Notification No. 24/2005-Cus., dated 1-3-2005. I order the said goods to be re-classified under CTH 9001 10 00 and duty to be charged at appropriate rates. (b) I order for confiscation of the provisional assessment made in respect of Bills of Entry Nos. 331766 dated 7-1-2006 and 332377 dated 8-11-2006. (c) I confiscate the goods imported vide Bills of Entry Nos. 331766 dated 7-11-2006 and 332377 dated 8-11-2006 totally valued at Rs. 2,18,05,871/- (A.V.) under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. As goods wer....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....atel. The authority classified the goods under CTH 9001 10. The learned Commissioner also relied on the opinion of the Department of Information Technology, which was given in M/s. Alcatel's case and considered by the Advance Ruling Authority. On the whole, the decision of the Commissioner is wholly based on the ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority in M/s. Alcatel's case. 4. As rightly pointed out by the learned consultant for the appellants, the learned Commissioner overlooked the inapplicability of the ruling of the Advance Ruling Authority. The adjudicating authority overlooked the provisions of Section 28J of the Customs Act, which reads as under :- "Applicability of advance ruling - (1) The advance ruling pronounced by the Authorit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....persuasive effect. 5. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we are constrained to remand the case to the adjudicating authority. As we have already indicated, nothing contained in the Advance Ruling Authority's order in M/s. Alcatel's case shall be applied to the case on hand, which requires to be considered independently and disposed of in accordance with law. The party shall be given an effective opportunity to demonstrate their case (by producing samples of the goods) as also to be personally heard. The appellants have cited a line of decisions in support of their contention that the burden of classification lies on the Department and therefore there can be no confiscation of imported goods on the ground of misclassific....