2025-VIL-969-CESTAT-MUM-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs – Section 28(4) of Customs Act, 1962 – Re-assessment – Demand of differential duty – Appellants had imported ‘LED panels’ and classified same for assessment at rate of duty corresponding to tariff lines in heading 8529 of First Schedule to Tariff Act and claimed benefit of notification no.12/2012-Cus – After investigation, Commissioner had re-assessed imported goods as liable to duty at rate corresponding to sub-heading 8527 72 of First Schedule to Tariff Act and denied concession extended to ‘LED panels’ in impugned notification and charging differential duty under Section 28(4) of Customs Act – Whether Impugned order demanding differential duty under Section 28(4) of Customs Act is sustainable – HELD – There is no evidence that consignments as imported and presented on each occasion was capable of being assembled into specific number of television sets by very basic operations. Consignments contain ‘LED panels’ entitled to be cleared on rate of duty noted in impugned notification – With the ‘parts’ meriting appropriate classification, basis of denial, viz., treatment of goods as finished articles, is no longer available to be pressed into service – Differential duty was not to have been ordered for recovery – There is also no mis-declaration of value or any other particular in impugned bills of entry – Confiscation of goods is not in order and must be aside – Impugned order passed by Commissioner is bereft of any legal and factual sustenance and hence, set aside – Appeals allowed

Quick Search

/

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page