2025 (12) TMI 246

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....f enablement for invoking extended period of limitation for recovery of duties which, in the light of their submission that the impugned goods, viz., 'brush cutters' and 'spare parts of brush cutters', were so patently intended for use in agriculture, and classified thereto in accordance with industrywide practice, should have prompted the lower authorities to exclude the ingredients upon which section 28(4) of Customs Act, 1962 could be resorted to. 2. The appellant had filed bills of entry no. 5158973/11.11.2011 and no. 5868014/31.01.2012 on import of goods that, claiming to be chargeable to levy at rate of duty corresponding to tariff item 8433 5900 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, were cleared for home consumption. Subs....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e invoked. 4. Learned Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the appellant had mis-declared the tariff heading to take advantage of lower rate of duty and, that in the present system of assessment, onus was solely on the importer for correctness of declaration - both on applicable rate of duty and as well on value in declaration. He relied on the decisions of the Tribunal in IBM India (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore [final order no. 20920/2023 dated 08th September 2023] disposing off appeal [customs appeal no. 2535 of 2011] against order [order-in-appeal no. 44/2011-Cus. (B) dated 25th May 2011] of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore, in Panasonic Sales and Services India Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of....