2026-VIL-766-CESTAT-DEL-CU
  1. Home
  2. 2026-VIL-766-CESTAT-DEL-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Misclassification of imported goods as Apatite (GR) Calcium Phosphate instead of Calcium Phosphate - The appellant imported goods declared as Apatite (GR) Calcium Phosphate under CTI 2510 20 30 but the department claimed it should be classified under CTI 2835 26 90 as Calcium Phosphate - Whether the imported goods were correctly classified by the appellant under Chapter 25 or deserved to be classified under Chapter 28 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 – HELD - The Commissioner concluded that the goods imported through the six Bills of Entry were calcined and would not fall under Chapter 25 of the Tariff Act and will fall under Chapter 28 of the Tariff Act. This inference was based on the emails exchanged between the appellant and the supplier, which clearly showed that the supplier was of the opinion that the goods were classifiable under Chapter 28 and not under Chapter 25 and that calcination process had been undertaken - The appellant objected to the use of the word 'calcination' by the supplier with the sole purpose of making out a case that the goods would be classifiable under Chapter 25. There was no occasion for the Department to have carried out tests of the goods that were imported because they had been cleared and investigation had started later. The emails exchanged between the appellant and the suppliers clearly show that the appellant was trying to manipulate the records with the intention of evading appropriate customs duty. The Commissioner was, therefore, justified in holding that the appellant deliberately misdeclared the description of the goods and its classification with the sole intention of evasion of duty. The impugned order directs for payment of differential duty and, therefore, does not call for any interference - The appeals filed by the appellant, its Director and Manager are dismissed - Penalty on director and manager - The impugned order imposed penalties on the director and manager of the appellant company for their involvement in misdeclaration and manipulation of documents – HELD - The penalties imposed on the director and manager were justified based on the evidence showing their active involvement in manipulating documents and correspondence with the supplier to mislead the customs authorities and evade duty. The emails demonstrated that the director and manager were complicit in the misdeclaration and had deliberately attempted to conceal the true nature of the goods. Therefore, the penalties under sections 114AA and 112(a)(ii) of the Customs Act were rightly imposed on them.
Download File

Quick Search

/

Advance Search

GST Resources

/

Gst Rate Finder

Weekly Summary

VIL Video

GSTAT Appeal filed wrongly...
By CA Vivek Jalan

Create Account

Security-Code
New Code?

Log In

New User ? Forgot Password ?

Forgot Password

Security-Code
New Code?
Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page

Security-Code
New Code?

Feedback this page

Schedule a Demo

Schedule a demo to know the features and advantages of VILGST portal. Get to know the tips to find the desired results in faster way.

Security-Code
New Code?

Caselaw Request Form (CRF)

Didn’t find what you are searching for? No worries, please give us the following details and VIL will email you the desired Caselaws at the earliest:

Security-Code
New Code?