Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.7 DRI in the show-cause notice alleges manipulations and forgeries in classification and documentation solely on the ground that the appellant/assessee never manufactured ventilating and recycling hoods and therefore to evade duties manipulated classification of the goods. Thus, show-cause notice inter alia proceeded on end use to determine classification.

4.8 Learned Advocate argued that while determining the classification, the end user of the imported goods is immaterial when no actual user condition is attached on the importation of parts of ventilating and recycling hoods against transferable additional licences. He also argued that the specific classification in the Customs Tariff is a determining factor for classifying the imported goods as the test of end use of a particular item is of no relevance. [Dunlops India Ltd. - 401 AIR 1977 SC 597 (para 42)] 4.9 Parts of ventilating and recycling hoods are specifically classified under CTH 8414.90. Learned Advocate further argued that though compressors are parts of air conditioners, Customs department are classifying the same under 8414.80 and this classification continues till date. He further stated that in the show-cause notice the department has admitted that compressors are assessable under CTH 8414.80 but peculiarly ventilating and recycling hoods are illogically and illegally directed to be classified under CTH 8415.90.

7.10 The other preliminary objection is that the department has not supplied other copy of Bill of Entry. During cross-examination Shri Mishra has stated that he has assessed the Bill of Entry on certain conditions which may be on other copies of Bill of Entry. It is to be appreciated that these bill of entries were assessed in 1990 and the learned Advocate for the appellant/assessee asked the same in 2009 i.e. after 19 years. In any case since the bill of entry were assessed and were not assessed provisionally, one has to assume that the same were assessed unconditionally. There is nothing like conditional assessment under the Customs Act. If there was any condition, the condition was required to be enforced before the assessment or clearance etc. or if that was not possible to resort to provisional assessment. In view of this position, we agree with the learned Advocate that it has to be presumed that Bill of Entry were assessed unconditionally. The case has to be decided on this assumption 7.11 Another preliminary objection raised by the learned Advocate that he has not been allowed to cross-examination of the AC. It is seen from the impugned order that neither Shri Mishra nor the appellant/assessee could tell the name of AC. As the matter was almost 19 years old and in the absence of details of name of A.C., one cannot expect adjudicating authority to call him. In our opinion the bill of entry are to be assessed by the Asst. Collector and there can be no doubt that the bill of entry were assessed by AC Group. The learned Advocate for the appellant/assessee has also stated in preliminary objections, since the bill of entry were assessed with the consent of Asst. Collector, the appellant/assessees cannot be held liable for any alleged mis-declaration of wrong classification. We are unable to agree with this contention. The fact that the Bill of Entry was assessed by AC does not automatically lead that the appellant/assessee has not done any mis-declaration which lead to the wrong classification. The Appraising Officer or the AC would do the classification based upon the information and documents supplied by the importer. If manipulated documents or manipulated information are submitted to the Appraising Officer and the Asst. Collector, they would do the classification based upon such manipulated documents/information and the importer definitely could be held liable for such mis-declaration.

7.12 The learned Advocate for the appellant/assessee has also asked cross-examination of Shri Sambhus. Shri Sambhus is an employee of the appellant/assessee and was dealing with the clearance work and use to sit in the CHAs office. Reason for declining the request for cross-examination has been given in the impugned order in para 5.8 and we are fully satisfied with the explanation.

7.13 Shri Sambhus is a co-noticee, the matter is more than 19 years old and Shri Sambhus is also an employee of the M/s. Videocon Group. We note that while the appellant/assessee have been able to produce invoice T002 along with the enclosure as also copy of the bill of entry on which assessment were made, the so called literature and catalogue produced by them at the time of clearance has not been produced by them in reply to show-cause notice in 1990 or before the adjudicating authority either in 1991 or 2009or before this appellate Tribunal in both the rounds of litigation. We are unable to appreciate why the appellant/assessee has not able to produce the literature and catalogue which they claim to have produced to the Appraising Officer at the time of clearance of goods. The obvious conclusion is either no such detailed literature or catalogue was produced or if produced, must be Xerox of some photograph or manipulated document. In fact, if there was detailed catalogue indicating that parts in question are parts of ventilating and recycling hood, there was no need to go for expert opinion, by them.

9. The learned Advocate has also quoted few case laws. We have gone through these case laws. These are in different context. Keeping in view our conclusion that the description was manipulated in the assessment and related documents and it is based upon the said manipulated documents that the initial consignment was released, the case laws cited are not applicable.

9.1 In the case of Dunlop India Ltd. (supra) the Honble Supreme Court has held that meaning as understood by people in trade and commerce is to be accepted. It was also held in the case context to the classification where V.P. Latex would be covered as rubber that end use is not important. In the present case the issue involved is whether certain parts imported were parts of air conditioner or parts of ventilating and recycling hood. As the classification itself is linked to the end use, end use of the goods would become important. Moreover, as observed by the Honble Supreme Court, the meaning has to be taken as understood by people in trade and commerce. As explained earlier ventilating and recycling hood are equipment which are used in home, restaurants, laboratories, industrial establishments that is the common understanding of the trade and commerce as also Tariff/HSN. Another case law quoted is of Doyang Tea Estate (supra) wherein the Honble Calcutta High Court has held that knowledge of adjudicator cannot be final words to substitute expert opinion. We have already discussed the so called report from the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pune and it requires no further explanation. Part of the report which is based upon authoritative literature only supports the case of Revenue. In any case, the facts in the present case are totally different. Similar is the position in respect of facts of the case of Wipro Ltd. (supra). Another case law quoted is that of Penta Media Graphics Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal has held that where the Commissioner read over parties in personal hearing of the expert opinion on highly technology matter and copy not given was held to be violation of principles of natural justice. In the present case no expert opinion has been given by the department what was taken and provided from internet/Google is relating to the common understanding of ventilating and recycling hood and not an expert opinion. Copy of the same has been enclosed in the adjudication order and we find there is no expert detail but a general understanding. We also note that the appellant has not been able to counter the same before the Tribunal. The learned Advocate for the appellant has quoted three case laws to say that no redemption fine can be levied on the goods finally assessed for duty and not available for confiscation. We find in the present case almost all the goods were available and were seized and released on provisional basis on execution of bond. Under these circumstances the three case laws quoted by the learned Advocate are distinguishable. In fact, Honble Supreme Court in the case of Weston Components reported in 2000 (115) ELT 278 (SC) has held that in such circumstances redemption fine imposable.