TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 1734
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort belts and raw materials for manufacture of artificial limbs, etc. The appellant has imported the impugned goods through Kolkata Airport, which were cleared vide 37 Bills of Entry and one courier consignment for the period from 18.10.2014 to 09.07.2019, by declaring them as "Orthopaedic / Fracture appliances" and classifying the same under CTH 90211000, by paying Customs duty at exempted rates by claiming the benefit as provided under Notification No. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2013 [Sl. No. 473 & 482(b)] and Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017 [Sl. No. 563A and 578]. 2.1. On the basis of intelligence, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Kolkata Zonal Unit (KZU) conducted an investigation in respect of the goods imported by the appellant. The DRI officers alleged that the appellant-company has mis-declared the goods and mis-classified the same under CTH 90211000 of the Customs Tariff. It was alleged that the said items were compression hosiery (stockings), compressing garments, support belts and raw materials classifiable under CTHs 61151000, 61152990, 62121000, 63079090, 30059090, 68159990, 48119094 or 39219090, as the case may be, as stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....st, and imposition of penalties, the appellants have filed these appeals. 3. The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant are regular importers of "Orthopaedic / Fracture appliances of various types; the goods were being imported from renowned overseas suppliers. He mentions that the items were being classified under the Tariff Heading 9021 as medical equipment considering the exclusive use of the item for medical purpose only as prescribed by different medical practitioners; that the description of each item was being reflected on the Bills of Entry as per the manufacturer's invoice and catalogue of the supplier, against whose invoice the Bills of Entry were being filed. It is further stated that during the course of assessment, the assessing officers had raised many queries, which were explained by the appellants as per the manufacturer's catalogue, leaflet; accordingly, the assessing officer has assessed the goods and Customs duty was paid for clearance of the goods since the year 2014. In this regard, he also submits that on many occasions, the goods were physically checked by the Customs Officers and by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner concerned, bu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... that as they were regular importers of the said items and the classification had been adopted by them as per the manufacturer's invoice and catalogue available in respect of the said goods imported. On the ground that they have not suppressed any information from the Department, the appellant submits that invocation of the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Act, to demand differential Customs duty in this case, is not proper. 7. We take note of the fact that during the course of assessment, several queries had been raised by the assessing officers, which were explained by the appellants as per the manufacturer's catalogue, leaflet, etc. In such manner, the goods were being assessed to duty by the assessing officers and Customs duty was being paid for clearance of the goods since the year 2014. It is also pertinent to note that, as pointed out by the appellant, on many occasions, the goods were physically checked by the Customs Officers and by the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner concerned, but no such allegation had been brought out at any stage, as have been raised when the Show Cause Notice dated 15.10.2019 was issued. 7.1. From the above, w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....department. Merely because the appellants have claimed a wrong classification, that does not mean that the department need not ascertain/verify the claim of the appellant and can issue demand notices for short-levy alleging suppression, especially in view of the Board's circular dated 10-6-2002 cited supra which had alerted the departmental officers about the misdeclarations made by the importers of processed bentonite. Even for the period prior to 106-2002, the same principle would apply. We have also perused the description declared by the appellants in the various B/Es filed by them. The goods have been described in various ways such as bleaching earth, decolourising earth, processed clay/bentonite and sometimes by their brand names, mentioned in the Board's circular cited above. Nothing prevented the department from calling for the detailed specifications of the product, drawing of samples and getting them tested, to ascertain whether the product imported is activated or not. Further these items are imported on a regular basis by various traders/actual users such as foundry industry, oil exploration industry, vegetable oil industry and so on. If that be the case, the department....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upon by the ld. adjudicating authority in the impugned order. In the said case, it was held that for resolving any dispute relating to tariff classification, a safe guide is the internationally accepted nomenclature emerging from the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN), which in the instant case, has not been disputed by the appellants. In the case on hand, we find that the classification pointed out by the investigation authorities has been duly accepted by the appellants and subsequent consignments were also cleared as per the proposed classification. Therefore, the facts and circumstances in the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in LML Ltd. (supra) are different from that in the present case and hence, distinguishable. 8.1. Further, we have also gone through the Haryana Financial Corporation & anr. V. Jagdamba Oil Mills [2002 (1) TMI 1266 - Supreme Court] relied upon by the Revenue wherein it was held that placing reliance blindly on a judgement is not proper and factual situations between the decided case and the case at hand are required to be gone into. We find that the said decision is not applicable to the present case at all. 9. In view of the above, we find ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,75,048.00 22,91,981.00 18. 3422616 Dated: 30.11.2015 42,59,583.00 12,12,143.00 19. 3696013 Dated: 23.12.2015 68,84,470.00 19,12,985.00 20. 4752195 Dated: 30.03.2016 31,32,221.00 7,95,767.00 21. 4918327 Dated: 15.04.2016 37,183.00 8,099.00 22. 6335875 Dated: 11.08.2016 2,636.00 642.00 23. 8035332 Dated: 31.12.2016 8,928.00 2,202.00 24. 1645611 Dated: 29.07.2017 1,00,289.00 23,604.09 Demand beyond statutory period of 1 year up to 14.05.2016 and 2 years thereafter = Rs. 1,59,49,446/- 25. 3757650 Dated: 26.10.2017 22,162.00 5,216.00 26. 4100400 Dated: 22.11.2017 1,95,465.00 57,648.00 27. 5750236 Dated: 27.03.2018 90,168.00 21,222.00 28. 6358110 Dated: 14.05.2018 1,18,266.00 36,155.00 29. 6837705 Dated: 18.06.2018 533.00 130.00 30. 7241627 Dated: 17.07.2018 16,415.00 3,926.00 31. 7794092 Dated: 27.08.2018 1,18,910.00 28,919.00 32. 8284066 Dated: 02.10.2018 49,346.00 12,001.00 33. 9535341 Dated: 05.01.2019 29,872.00 7,265.00 34. 2022472 Dated: 12.02.2019 2,35,681.00 57,318.00 3....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, we find that the appellant has made the declaration and classified the goods as per their understanding. It has been pointed out by the counsel for the appellant that the said items were being classified under Tariff Heading 9021 as medical equipment considering the use of the item for medical purpose as prescribed by medical practitioners. Further, the description on the Bills of Entry were being reflected as per the manufacturer's invoice and catalogue of the suppliers. It is also a fact that the Bills of Entry were properly assessed by the assessing officer and cleared on payment of duty. Thus, there is no suppression of fact attributable to the appellant while filing the Bills of Entry. Since the goods have been cleared on payment of appropriate duties of Customs, as assessed by the proper officer, we hold that the same are not liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the order of confiscation of the goods in question along with the imposition of redemption fine stands set aside. 11. Further, we observe that even if the classification is found to be wrong, the appellant cannot be faulted for classifying the goods under CTH 90211....