2025 (2) TMI 1290

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e' and issued Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 08.04.2013 to the importer proposing the classification of the goods under Customs Tariff Item entry (CTI) 90118000 and demanding differential duty along with interest and proposal for imposition of penalty. The Show Cause Notice (SCN) also proposed imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the Appellant-Customs Broker. The Appellant contended that the classification under Customs Tariff Item entry (CTI) 90189099 for the impugned goods was claimed all over India and were allowed clearances by the other Custom Houses. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 810/2013 dated 18.09.2013 confirmed the classification of the goods under Customs Tariff Item entry (CTI) 90118000, demanded differential duty along with interest and imposed penalty on the importer. Further a penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- was imposed on the Appellant-Customs Broker. Assailing the order, the importer and the Appellant-Customs Broker filed appeals before Commissioner (Appeals) which were dismissed vide Orders-in-Appeal No. 1 to 3/2015 dated 07.01.2015. The importer M/s. Narayana Hrudayalaya Pvt., Ltd., has filed an Appeal No. C/....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....her Custom Houses; the Commissioner passed the impugned order in gross violation of principles of natural justice without giving any opportunity to give explanation as there were no charges leveled in the show-case notice issued to the appellant; the learned Commissioner failed to note that in respect of 5(five) bills of entry referred the items imported are different, whereas in the bill of entry No. 6464935 dated 05.04.2012 the item imported was 'Surgical Microscope for Neurosurgery Model ZEISS PENTERO, a new model OPMI PENTERO, which was for neurosurgery and spine surgery combining solutions for basic requirement with the addition of a variety of additional benefits like integration of the surgical microscope into the hospital's information and communication infrastructure and user friendly solution for staff. Further the Appellant-Custom Broker was informed at the time of filing of Bill of Entry on 05.04.2012 by the importer to classify this model under Customs Tariff Item Entry 90189099 and claim exemption. Therefore, learned Commissioner has erred in holding that the appellants have not advised the importer properly; the Commissioner erred in holding that the appellan....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r Neurosurgery Model ZEISS PENTERO under Customs Tariff item entry 90189099 instead of under Customs Tariff Item entry 90118000. Whether the appellant-Custom Broker is liable for penalties under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013. 11. We find that the Appeal No. C/20874/2015 filed by the importer, M/s. Narayana Hrudayalaya Pvt. Ltd., has been decided by this Tribunal Vide Final Order No. 20917/2024 dated 26.09.2024 wherein the classification of the impugned goods under Customs Tariff Item entry (CTI) 90118000 as held by the adjudicating and appellate authority, confirmation of the differential duty along with interest was upheld, however penalty under section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 was set aside. The Tribunal in the Final Order observed as under: "7. We find that the appellant had disclosed the description of the goods in their Bill of Entry as "Surgical Microscope for Neurosurgery - Zeiss OPMI Pentero with accessories" claiming the classification under CTH 90189099 along with benefit of Notification as per interpretation of the respective entry as understood by them. The Department, after accepting the classification accordingly assessed the goods and later, came to th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ls of entry that the goods are meant to be used as portable hand tools; the basis of classification as per explanatory notes of HSN. The stray cases of classification of the imported goods in five bills of entry under CTH 84678900 by the appellant, in our view, cannot lead to the conclusion that in other bills of entry, the goods were declared under wrong heading knowingly and to suppress the correct classification. The explanation furnished by the appellant that the mistake occurred when other goods of the same heading were imported along with the Brush cutters seems to be reasonable. Thus, invoking of extended period cannot be sustained and hence the demand is barred by limitation. Consequently, the penalties on the Appellants not sustainable. 8. Following the said decision, we do not find justification for imposition of penalty. In the result, the impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. Appeal is disposed of." 12. We find that the appellant has contended that; they have classified the impugned goods 'Surgical Microscope for Neurosurgery Model ZEISS PENTERO' as per the advice of....