TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 1608
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Bills of Entry under CTH 9013 which attracted NIL rate of duty. The Revenue taking a cue from the intelligence and the investigation conducted by the Delhi Zonal Unit of DRI, was of the view that the subject goods that is 'LCD panels' which are essentially the integral parts of AIC, are required to be classified under CTH 87089900 / 87149010 as parts of motor cars/motor cycles/commonly referred to as 'motor vehicles' and hence, the Appellant-Importer had deliberately mis-declared the subject goods as 'Liquid Crystal Display' instead of describing it as 'essential and integral parts of clusters' and thereby evaded Customs duty. Based on the alleged evidence gathered during investigation, it appears that a SCN dated 12.05.2014 was issued on the grounds that the LCD panels were customized/designed as per the specifications and requirements of vehicle manufacturers and, therefore, cannot be used for any application other than in the manufacture of Cluster/AIC for motor vehicles and model numbers for which they are designed; CTH 9013 covers 'Liquid Crystal Devices' not constituting articles provided for more specifically in other Headings, thereby indicating that the above Heading is i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tifying its classification as declared, but however, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the proposals made in the SCN on the following grounds: ⮚ The Appellant who is a manufacturer of AIC, imported parts for the same through various ports, declaring the items imported as 'Liquid Crystal Device' in the Bills of Entry; adding numbers in some cases like LCD7 segment ++ ICONS SK01701 (ISI2300PF04) and classified them under CTH 9013; ⮚ In the Bills of Entry filed by other importers which were considered by the investigating agency for comparison, the goods were declared clearly with other suffixes and prefixes e.g. Liquid Crystal Display (MPN: TJM4967) (17207) (Actual User-Liquid Crystal Display of Automotive Parts) and classified under CTH 8708 as 'Automotive parts';  The Appellant did not mention in the Bills of Entry the usage of the items imported; the subject goods being meant solely or principally to be used in AIC, which is designed for a specific model of a car or two wheeler, the Appellant had not declared the correct description indicating the intended use at the time of import as mandated under Section 46 of the Act; CTH 90131010 doe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....motive parts' and classifying the LCD panels under CTH 8708 had enabled correct assessment and therefore the extended period of limitation was rightly invocable in this case; ⮚ With the introduction of self-assessment procedure, burden is always on the Importer to declare the correct description and correct classification, determine the actual applicable duty as well; the mis-declaration and mis- classification is therefore done with a view to avoid payment of Basic Customs duty, which has resulted in short-payment of other duties of Customs, like CVD and SAD; ⮚ With regard to the contention of the Appellant as to non-providing of certain materials/evidence brought out in the SCN, apart from furnishing copies of examination reports, etc. would not serve any purpose; the ratio of decision in Priya Blue Industries Vs CC [2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC) would not apply to the facts of the case, since in the present case, it was found out during investigation that the Appellant had deliberately mis-declared the description and the classification as well by wilfully suppressing the facts in contravention of Sections 46 and 17 of the Act, thereby justifying the re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inds mention in the SCN, in the said judgement the Apex Court has concluded that by virtue of Note 2 (a) to Chapter 90, 'parts and accessories' which are goods specifically mentioned in Chapter 90 would be classified under the respective headings and not as 'parts and accessories' by applying Note 2(a) of Chapter 90; Delhi Bench decision of the Tribunal in the case of Samsung India Electronics [2015 (326) ELT 161 (Tri.-Del)] is in their favour as Section Note (2) contains a provision similar to the one in Section XVI discussed by the Delhi Bench, that Section XVII applicable to Chapter 87 does not cover articles of Chapter 90; examination reports would have proved bonafide regarding the declaration made at the time of import and further supported the Appellant's contention that there was no suppression or mala fide intention; the ratio of Apex Court judgement in the case of Priya Blue Industries [2004 (172) ELT 145 (SC)] that once an order of assessment is passed, the duty is payable as per the order unless the order is taken on appeal and modified by the Appellate Authority; it has been held by the Tribunal in the case of Mac & Megha Agro Equipments (P) Ltd. Vs CC Kochi [2006 (199....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equirements for import of LCDs at various ports, but no question was ever raised regarding the classification till the issue was taken up by the DRI; ⮚ LCDs are used as components in electronic clusters for two wheelers and four wheelers manufactured by them and each LCD is specifically designed according to the product specification; ⮚ As per Note 2 (g) to Section XVII covering Chapters 86-89, the expressions 'parts' and 'parts and accessories' do not apply to articles of Chapter 90 whether or not such 'parts' and 'parts and accessories' are identifiable as goods of Section XVII; ⮚ In view of this specific exclusion, Note 3 of Section XVII cannot be made applicable to the subject goods even if they are meant for use solely or principally with clusters for motor vehicles. ⮚ No doubt, the shape and size of the imported panel is customized as per the specification provided by the Appellant to the foreign supplier, but such customization does not change the nature of the articles which remain as LCD panels only, based on Chapter Heading 9013 and HSN Explanatory Note for the said heading; ⮚ LCD panels have ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Apex Court and hence, the confiscation would not arise at all in this case. 7. Per contra, the learned Deputy Commissioner Shri Sanjay Kakkar relied on the findings given in the impugned order. He would also contend that in terms of Note 3 to Section XVII of the CTA being solely meant for use in AIC for four wheelers and two wheelers, classification of the LCD panels would fall under CTH 8708 / 8714 only as the entries are more specific than the Entry in CTH 9013, which is generic in nature. He would also contend that the omission in mentioning the vehicle-specific use in the Bill of Entry amounted to suppression, resulting in the subject goods being assessed to duty incorrectly by the Department. He would also place reliance on the following decisions : (i) G.S. Auto International Ltd. Vs CCE [2003 (1520 ELT 3 (SC)] (ii) Pragati Silicons Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE [2007 (211) ELT 534 (SC)] (iii) Cosmic Dye Chemical Vs CCE Bombay [1995 (75) ELT 721 (SC)] (iv) CCE Vs Chemphar Drugs & Liniments [1989 (40) ELT 276 (SC)] (v) Northern Plastic Ltd. Vs CC [1998 (101) ELT 549 (SC)] (vi) CCE Vs Mehta & Co. [2011 (264) ELT 481 (SC) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ensive arguments were addressed by both sides by quoting from different texts and authorities." 10. Further, the jurisdictional Madras High Court has in the case of CC (Port-Import) Chennai Vs Authority for Advance Rulings, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, New Delhi [2025 (391) ELT 113 (Mad.) held as under : "19.3 It has been repeatedly held that until all the components of the complete article are presented together for assessment at the same point of time, Rule 2(a) cannot be invoked to classify the parts as complete article. It has also been held that consignments removed/presented at different points of time from different factories cannot be clubbed together to classify the parts as complete article. The sine qua non for the application of this Rule is that any imported article, which is "as presented", must have the essential character of the "complete or finished article". It is also a settled position in law that the goods would have to be assessed in the form in which they are imported and presented on import and not on the basis of the finished goods manufactured after subjecting them to some process after the import is made. In this regard, it may be re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning clause would have to be read and thereby, the words "that article" used in the later part would have to pass the test of the opening words of the clause "as presented, the incomplete or unfinished article has the essential character of the complete or finished article". Once this condition is satisfied then the further clause is activated, suggesting that even when such article is in disassembled or unassembled condition, it would still be taken to be a complete article. Therefore, essentially the second part would come into play provided the component parts intended to make up the finished product are all presented for customs clearance at the same time which is not the case here. xx xx xx 26. Again, the meaning of terms "as presented" in Rule 2(a) would clearly imply that the same refers to presentation of the incomplete or unfinished or unassembled or disassembled articles to the Customs for assessment and classification purpose. It is also a settled position in law that the goods would have to be assessed in the form in which they are imported and presented to the customs and not on the basis of the finished goods manufactured after subjecting them to some proc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m different factories cannot be clubbed together to classify the parts as complete article.' [Emphasis supplied]" 11. Thus, construing the LCD as AIC and subjecting the LCD to assessment at the time of import as 'motor vehicle parts' under CTA, 1975 is wholly ill-founded. Therefore, at the outset, we are clear that the dispute that arises for our consideration in this Appeal is the classification of 'Liquid Crystal Device (LCD)' and not 'Automotive Instrument Cluster (AIC)'. 12. The Appellant relies on Note 2 (g) Section XVII as per which articles falling under Chapter 90 stands excluded from Section XVII which is applicable to Chapters 86 to 88 and in contrast, the Revenue relies on Note 3, to contend that being parts solely meant for use in motor vehicles, the LCDs fall under CTH 8708/ 8714. At this juncture, it is material to examine the competing notes under Section XVII, which are as follows: "Note 2. The expressions, "parts" and "parts and accessories" do not apply to the following articles, whether or not, they are identifiable as for the goods of this section: ............ (g) Articles of Chapter 90 ---- Note 3. Referenc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e classification, we also rely and refer to the same. HSN notes under Chapter 90.13, defines 'LCDs' as - Liquid Crystal Devices consisting of a liquid crystal layer sandwiched between two sheets or plates of glass or plastics, whether or not fitted with electrical connections, presented in the peace or cut to special shapes and not constituting articles described more specifically in other headings of the Nomenclature. 15. The Explanatory Notes do not just stop with 'not constituting articles described more specifically in other headings, but continue and end with the words - of the Nomenclature. Thus, as per HSN Explanatory Notes, such more specific description should be by nomenclature or naming of the product or group of products and therefore, by no structure of imagination 'parts and accessories' can be termed as reference or specific description by Nomenclature. 16. In the case of Premier Instruments and Controls Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court affirmed the decision of Tribunal and thereby the classification of AIC has attained finality. When we look at the facts and the issue therein, the same related to the classification of cluster of instruments consisting o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....25. The difficulty in accepting the revenue's argument, in this case, is that it jumps over interpretive instructions. One, General Note (1) states that classification has to be in consonance with terms and headings in chapter notes. Two, Rule 3(a) categorically enjoins that in regard to classification, the heading providing for a "more" specific description prevails over the general one. Three, Note 1(m) - in Chapter 85 excludes the application of articles falling in Chapter 90. In this Court's opinion, this note, along with the General Note 3(a) [of the General Rules of Interpretation] that headings that are specifically provided, should be preferred over the general ones, is decisive. Thus, the revenue's contention that by virtue of Note 2(b) to Chapter 85, the goods are to be classified based on their principal or sole use is insubstantial because of the clear mandate of Note 1(m), which excludes Chapter 90 goods (which includes LCD panels). More importantly, Note 2 opens with the expression "subject to Note 1". This subordinates the entire subject matter in Note 2; it is only where the article is a "part" which acts as an accessory, that the enumerated portions of Chapter 85 c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ets could not have been excluded from Parts and Accessories. We have referred to such exclusion in the preceding paragraph. It has also been urged on behalf of the revenue that these items are not commonly identified as carpets but are different products. The Tribunal on detailed analysis on various entries, Rules and Notes have found they fit the description of goods under chapter heading 570390.90. We accept this finding of the Tribunal. Once the subject goods are found to come within the ambit of that sub-heading, for the sole reason that they are exclusively made for cars and not for "home use" (in broad terms), those goods cannot be transplanted to the residual entry against the heading 8708. As we find the subject-goods come under the chapter-heading 570390.90, and the other entry under the same Chapter forming the subject of dispute in the second order of the Commissioner, in our opinion, there is no necessity to import the "common parlance" test or any other similar device of construction for identifying the position of these goods against the relevant tariff entries." ... .... 28. It is, therefore, clear that when goods are excluded from a particular chap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Chapter Entry 9028 would get attracted. However, this argument loses sight of the fact that Note 2(b) relates to "other parts and accessories", namely, it would apply to those parts and accessories for which Note 2(a) is inapplicable. Once we find that in the present case Note 2(a) squarely applies, the irresistible conclusion is that the goods will be classified in Tariff Item 9013, which is the specific heading for these goods." 18. We also find that the issue in the case of Samsung India Electronics Pvt Ltd. (supra) who imported Liquid Crystal Devices, was the classification of LCDs under CTH 90138010, which was disputed by the Revenue, to be classified under CTH 85299090 on the ground that these were parts suitable for use solely or principally with LCD TVs of CTH 8528. The Allahabad Bench vide its order reported in 2018 (360) ELT 1053 (Tri.-All) concurred with an earlier order of the coordinate Bench of Delhi in respect of the same importer and held as under: "7. .... It clearly follows from the said Supreme Court's judgment that the description "parts suitable for use solely or principally with LCD TV" does not cover LCDs for LCD TVs as specifically as the descrip....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes...... 12. ...... And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board [1972 (2) WLR 537] Lord Morris said : "There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. " 13. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. ..." 20. We also note that in the case of Ford India Private Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [(2024) 24 CENTAX 20 (Tri.-Mad)], the Chennai Bench has, while ruling out the application of the ratio of Apex Court in the case of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed that the Adjudicating Authority has sustained the charge of suppression on the ground that other importers of identical goods mentioned end-use in their Bills of Entry. We observe that what should be declared should be statutorily mandated and declaration by someone does not by itself cast an obligation on others to do the same sans statutory prescription. When the SCN relies on certain documents to slap the charge of suppression, it is expected that copies of such relied upon documents are furnished to the noticee against whom a serious allegation is levelled. Whereas in the case on hand, we find that no such documents were shared with the Appellant despite repeated requests. If therefore, the reasoning of the Commissioner that in respect of self- assessment importers are obliged to take great care for correctly classifying the goods is taken to its logical conclusion, then, even cases of wrong classification due to genuine reasons could be branded as arising out of suppression and such interpretation would definitely defeat the purpose of having different time-limits for deliberate and inadvertent acts. 22. Further, we find that in this case, the imports have taken place t....