TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 994
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd others and investigated the matter and the Joint Commissioner served upon the appellant a show cause notice dated 6.5.2019 [SCN] proposing to: (i) reclassify the 50 gsm coated paper imported by the appellant and cleared through Bill of Entry no. 9601596 dated 8.5.2017 under Customs Tariff Heading [CTH] 481013 and deny the benefit of exemption notification no. 152/2009 dated 31.12.2009 as amended by notification no. 66/2016 dated 1.1.2017 (S.No. 385); (ii) hold the above goods liable to confiscation under section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 [Act]; (iii) recover differential duty of Rs. 12,74,473/- under section 28(1) of the Act along with interest under section 28AA of the Act; (iv) impose penalty on the appellant under section 112 (a) (ii) of the Act; and (v) appropriate an amount deposited during the investigation towards the demand. 3. The proposals in the SCN were confirmed by the Joint Commissioner in his OIO and upheld by the Commissioner in the impugned order. 4. None appeared on behalf of the appellant today. Ms. Shweta Jain Learned counsel for the appellant had submitted synopsis on 17 September 2024 but sought more ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....enue (which will not be covered by the exemption) may be rejected. (v) The claim of alternative classification under 4810 29 00 is due to the fact that the imported goods had more than 10% fiber content obtained through a mechanical or chemi-mechanical process. (vi) The appellant had also imported the goods through Mundra port classifying the goods under 4810 29 00 and the goods were cleared on execution of a test bond and bank guarantee pending test reports. (vii) Although the COO issued by the Korean Chamber of Commerce indicated HSN 481019, it should be treated as procedural infraction and the goods should be classified under 4810 29 00. (viii) The impugned order is not a speaking order. (ix) No evidence has been produced to substantiate allegation of evasion of customs duty. (x) Since the goods were already cleared for home consumption, they were not liable to confiscation under section 111(o) fo the Act. (xi) Since the goods cannot be confiscated, penalty under section 112 also cannot be imposed. (xii) The impugned order may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed with consequential relief to the appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ings 7. We have considered the submissions advanced by learned authorized representatives and perused the records. Three issues which need to be decided by us are: a) Classification of the goods imported by the appellant under CTI 4810 13 00 (as held in the impugned order) or under CTI 4810 19 90 (as claimed by the appellant) or under CTI 4810 29 00 (claimed by the appellant as an alternative submission). b) Applicability of the exemption notification 152/2009-Cus to the imported goods in the light of (a) above and consequential demand of duty of customs under section 28 (1) of the Act [the entire demand is within the normal period of limitation] c) In the facts of the case, liability of the imported goods to confiscation under section 111(o) of the Act; d) Consequent to (c) above, liability of the appellant to penalty under section 112 Classification of the goods 8. There is no dispute about the nature of the goods or the country of their origin. They coated paper of 50 gsm in rolls imported from South Korea. The relevant entries in the Customs Tariff are reproduced below: 4810 Paper and Paperboard, Coated on one or both sides wit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....btained by mechanical or chemi-mechanical processes. Such an alternative claim cannot be accepted because it is the first claim of the appellant that the content was less than 10% and the alternative claim is that it was more than 10%. In the synopsis submitted on 24 September 2024 on behalf of the appellant, it was claimed that in a consignment imported through Mundra the appellant had claimed classification under CTI 4810 29 00 and the bills were assessed pending test reports. It is also the claim of the appellant that it had self-assessed goods filed in the Bills of Entry in the past under CTI 4810 19 90 and no objection was raised. We find that goods must be classified in each Bill of Entry based on the nature of the goods. The fact that the goods imported through Mundra Port were claimed to have more than 10% fibre content obtained through mechanical or chemi-mechanical processes has no bearing on the goods imported through this Bill of Entry about which the appellant claims both CTIs with less than 10% fibre and those with more than 10% fibre. Even if the appellant had cleared goods classifying them under a CTI in some Bills of Entry in the past and the department did not tak....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ported from Korea and these do not include goods falling under CTI 4810 13 90. It is not the case of the appellant that goods falling under this CTI will also be eligible for the exemption. Therefore the exemption notification was not available to the imported goods and it has been wrongly taken by the appellant when self-assessing the Bill of Entry. 16. Consequently, the demand of duty short paid deserves to be upheld and is upheld along with applicable interest. Confiscation of the goods 17. The impugned order held that the goods were liable to confiscation under section 111(o) of the Act but since they were not available, they were not confiscated. This finding that the goods were liable to confiscation is significant because it forms the basis for imposing penalty on the appellant under section 112. 18. Section 111(o) reads as follows: Section 111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. - The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation: - (o) any goods exempted, subject to any condition, from duty or any prohibition in respect of the import thereof under this Act or any other law for the time....