ORDER
S.S. Kang, Vice-President
1. Heard both sides.
2. The appellant filed this appeal against the Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla whereby the goods imported by the appellant were confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and allowed release of the same on payment of redemption fine and personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The goods were confiscated and penalty was imposed on the ground that appellant misdeclared the description of the goods.
3. Appellant is a 100% Export Oriented Unit and imported raw material without payment of duty. The appellant made import of the goods in question on the strength of procurement certificate issued by the proper officer. The appellant declared the description of the goods as white stone, travertine tiles classifiable under Chapter 25 of Customs Tariff. As per the Customs, the goods are classifiable under Chapter 68 of the Customs Tariff. The adjudicating authority held that goods are not liable for duty as they produced amended procurement certificate issued by the authority under Central Excise.
4. The contention of the appellant is that there is no misdeclaration in respect of the description of the goods, the description of the goods was given as per invoice and the goods in question were imported under the procurement certificate as the appellant was 100% EOU. The contention is that the appellant declared the goods classifiable under Chapter 25 on the basis of the previous importer and now the adjudicating authority held that goods are classifiable under Chapter 68 of the Customs Tariff. The contention is that as the appellant gave full description of the goods, therefore, it is for the revenue to classify the goods under appropriate Chapter heading. The contention is also that subsequent to the import in the amended procurement certificate whereby it was stated that the goods in question fall under Chapter 68 of tariff. In view of the amended procurement certificate, no duty is demanded in the order hence the confiscation of goods and imposition penalty are not sustainable.
5. Revenue’s contention is that goods are classifiable under Chapter 68 of Customs Tariff on merit hence the claim of appellant under Chapter 25 of tariff is misdeclaration.
6. In this case, even in change of classification, no duty is demanded as the goods were for 100% EOU and were under procurement certificate issued by the Central Excise authorities. The appellant gave the description of the goods as in the invoice. There is no allegation that appellant suppressed the description of goods or misdeclared the goods to evade duty. The procurement certificate was subsequently amended by competent authority to the effect that the goods in question are classifiable under Chapter 68 of the Customs Act which fact is admitted by the revenue. In these circumstances, as the appellant gave full description of goods as in the invoice and in view of amended procurement certificate, the confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty are not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant is also entitled to consequential relief in accordance with law.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)