2025 (9) TMI 1175

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by the appellant - herein came to be dismissed thereby affirming the order in original passed by the Principal Commissioner dated 7-10-2020. 2. The following three questions fell for the consideration of the Tribunal:- (i) whether LG Watch W7 as imported by the appellant is classifiable under CTH 91021900 as claimed by the appellant or is classifiable under CTH 85176290 as affirmed vide the Order in original? (ii) whether the appellant is eligible to claim concessional rate of basic customs duty under Sl. No.955 of the Notification No.152/2009 dated 31-12-2009 ? and; (iii) whether the imported goods are liable for confiscation and the appellant is liable for being penalized? 3. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant imported 2000 units of "G Watch (Smart Watch)" from the Republic of Korea vide two bills of entry bearing Nos. 2370169 and 2375523 respectively both dated 11-3-2019. The appellant classified the said goods under CTH 91021900 and accordingly assessed the basic customs duty at the rate of "nil" after claiming the benefit of entry Sl. No.955 of Notification No. 152/2000-CUs dated 31-12-2009 4. The Tribunal however, re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... G-Watch can be connected to other mobile devices including the added wi-fi networks, (viii) it provides upon source software information. 6.9 The specific features of the impugned imported product, as discussed above, make it clear that the main function of this device is not just time keeping or time watching but to work as a portable/wearable device as an organizer which is capable of transmitting or receiving data in the form of voice or images plus it is an apparatus for communication în a wired or wireless network. Chapter 91 talks about watches/clocks mechanically electronically operated for respective display whether or not Thus any automatic and whether or not stop watch. Gadget/ apparatus or machine having any features in addition to above cannot be classified as watch/clock. Hence irrespective the product is wearable on wrist and that it has two metal hands with mechanical/quartz movement to show time, it cannot be called as clock and watches as are classifiable under Chapter 91. discussed above, the products of Chapter 91 have a specific purpose of timekeeping / time telling with certain advance functions but related only to time. Nothin....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....issioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, that the goods in respect of which the benefit of this exemption is claimed are of the origin of Republic of Korea, in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of the Republic of India and the Republic of Korea) Rules, 2009, published in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue).No. 187/2009-Customs (N.T.), dated the 31st December, 2009. 2. This notification shall come into force with effect from 1st January, 2010." 13. The Rectification Application came to be disposed of by the Tribunal holding as under:- "From the discussion on the above mentioned both the points of adjudication though it is clear that the goods have wrongly been classified by the appellant and the benefit of exemption of duty has also been wrongly claimed but we are aware that imposition of penalty is a penal consequence of some intentional mala fide act. The onus was of the department to prove that the wrong classification was an intentional act of the ap....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... is that there is a condition precedent in applying the Notification 151/2009 and the said condition is that the importer has to declare the place of origin and must produce the Certificate of Origin in accordance with the Customs Tariff (Determination of Origin of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between the Governments of the Republic of India and the Republic of Korea). In other words, according to Mr. Bharathi, the goods should have been originated from the Republic of South Korea for the purpose of seeking the benefit of the Notification 151/2009. 18. It appears that the whole idea in preferring the Rectification Application was to highlight the aforesaid. However, the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal is that there was nothing on record to indicate that the importer i.e. the appellant had proved to the satisfaction of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs with respect to the Certificate of Origin with them. 19. We are afraid the Tribunal does not seem to be right in taking such view. 20. Our attention was drawn to the Certificate of Origin which has been annexed and is a part of this Paper Book (Annexure A1). 21....