2021-VIL-58-CESTAT-MUM-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Case

Customs - Classification – Appellant claimed classification of Winches (stage Lighting Equipment) under Custom Tariff Heading 84253100 and LED Ball under 85395000 – Assistant Commissioner ordered for rejection of classification of goods under CTH 84253100 and re-classify the goods under CTH 94054090 and further ordered for absolute confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) & 111(m) of the Act and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act – Whether imported goods are classifiable under heading 84253100 as claimed by Appellant or 94054090 as ordered by authorities – HELD - Reading of Certificate of Chartered Engineer make it clear that primary use of impugned goods is the synchronized spatial choreography of large arrays of tethered lighting elements, and is specific in use for stage lighting – Lower authorities have determined essential character of impugned goods as lighting fixture after considering product catalogue and Chartered Engineer Certificate – Appellants have not produced anything to establish that impugned goods are simple handling/lifting equipment to merit classification under heading 84253100 – When both authorities have determined essential character of impugned goods as Lighting Fixture, then classification as determined by them under heading 94054090 cannot be faulted with - Whether goods are required to be compulsorily registered with BIS in view of provision of Electronics and IT Goods (Requirements for Compulsory Registration) Order, 2012 – HELD - Both Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) have found that goods have been imported in contravention of provisions of the Order – From perusal of the Order, it is quite evident that said Order is applicable in respect of goods as defined and specified in schedule and goods should be conformity with specified Indian Standard as per schedule – In absence of any determination of Indian Standard, which would be applicable in respect of impugned goods, impugned order holding that goods have been imported in contravention of provisions of the Order cannot be sustained - Whether impugned goods are liable for confiscation – HELD - Mere misclassification of goods is not misdeclaration, for which goods can be held liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act – Assistant Commissioner has for confiscation not only invoked Section 111(m) of the Act, but has also held that goods are prohibited goods and are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act too – Since goods have been held as prohibited for reason of failure to comply with requirements of compulsory registration of goods as per the Order, matter remanded back for consideration of applicability of said Order to impugned goods – Issue of confiscation in terms of Section 111(d) of the Act and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act is also remanded back to original authority – Assistant Commissioner should pass order in remand proceedings within three months after affording opportunity of hearing to Appellants

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page