Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.1 Learned Advocate appearing for the Appellants, stated that the impugned goods viz. 'open cell' undisputedly is classifiable under CTH 85.24, and it is not disputed by the Department. In terms of Note 7 to Chapter 85, all articles of 85.24 are treated as 'device' or 'apparatus'. Accordingly, he claimed that open cell will qualify as 'device' and its use as 'liquid crystal display' will qualify as 'liquid crystal device'. In addition to the above, it is also claimed by the appellants that 'open cells' in as-imported condition/ as such can be used for manufacture of monitors falling under sub-headings C/85352 & 85353/2023 8528.42, 8528.52, 8528.62, solely or principally used in automatic data processing system of heading 84.71 and therefore are eligible for exemption under Sl. No. 29 of Notification No.24/05-Customs dated 01.03.2005. Similarly, they claimed that parts of open cells are eligible to avail customs duty exemption under Sl. No. 30 of Notification No.24/2005-Customs dated 01.03.2005.

1.0MM 713 - 11069910' under item Sl. No.7; 'Prism sheet -32" 0.315MM 421.1MM - 11069916' under item Sl. No.12; 'Bezel front cabinet -32D2010 32HIF1 - 11070377' under item Sl. No.30; 'Back cover metal (Panel) - 32D2000 R=Y - 11073036' under item Sl. No.44, and claiming customs duty exemption under Sl. No. 30 of Notification No.24/2005-Customs dated 01.03.2005, as 'other parts of Open Cell' out of total 46 items declared in the above B/E. The imported goods were self-assessed by the appellants in terms of Section 17(1) ibid. During the process of verification of such self- assessment by the proper officer of customs, initially under the Faceless Assessment Group (FAG) and later by the Port Assessment Group (PAG), the Department have objected to the claim of the customs duty exemption claimed by the appellants and raised certain queries. These questions were replied by the appellants. However, as the proper officer was not convinced with the justification given by the appellants and wanted to assess the impugned goods by changing the notification for item Sl. No.4 under Sl. No. 515A of Notification No. 50/2017-Customs, the appellants had requested for issue of speaking order vide their letters dated 05.08.2022 and 17.10.2022.
(ii) I reject the declared notification benefit of Notification NO.

24/2005-Customs dated 01.03.2005 Sr. No. 30, claimed for item No. 6, 7, 12, 30 & 44 in Bill of Entry 9574139 dated 16.07.2022 of M/s. MIRC Electronic Ltd, (IEC No. 0388063394) and order to re-assess these items with notification benefit of Sr. No. 516 of Notification 50/2017-Cus. "

6.3 Similarly, imported goods under dispute covered under B/E No. No.2453614 dated 15.09.2022 have been declared as ' Open Cell 42.5" ' under item Sl. No.10 & 24 of invoice No.1 and 23 of invoice No.2 by claiming C/85352 & 85353/2023 customs duty exemption under Sl. No. 29 of Notification No.24/2005- Customs dated 01.03.2005, and 'other parts of open cell' under various items Sl. Nos. 13,14,15,16,17,18 of invoice No.1 and 12,13,14,15,16,17 of invoice No.2 and claiming customs duty exemption under Sl. No. 30 of Notification No.24/2005-Customs dated 01.03.2005. The imported goods were self-assessed by the appellants in terms of Section 17(1) ibid. During the process of verification of such self-assessment by the proper officer of customs, initially under the Faceless Assessment Group (FAG) and later by the Port Assessment Group (PAG), the Department have objected to the claim of the customs duty exemption claimed by the appellants and raised certain queries. These questions were replied by the appellants. However, as the proper officer was not convinced with the justification given by the appellants and they did not submit the details of their status with respect to Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017 for availing the exemption under Sl. No. 515A, 516 of Notification No. 50/2017- Customs, and replied negatively for availing any other customs duty exemption, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs of Appraising Group-VA, as proper officer proceeded for issue of an order under Section 17(5) ibid. In such re-assessment of the impugned goods, contrary to the self-assessment done by the appellants-importer, he had issued the Order-in-Original dated 29.11.2022, in denying the Customs duty exemption claimed by the appellants and ordering the re-assessment at merit rate of duty. The relevant portion of the above Order is extracted and given below:

8.3 The facts of the case further indicate that in the Original order dated 17.11.2022, customs duty exemption benefits under Sl. No.515A and 516 of Notification No.50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 have been extended, whereas in the Original order dated 29.11.2022, merit rate of duty has been applied without extending any duty exemption benefit, while reassessing the B/Es under Section 17(5) ibid, in contrary to the declaration made for self- assessment of goods by the appellants under Section 17(1) ibid. In this context, the learned Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), has not examined in detail how the exemption was allowed for imported goods under one B/E and in other B/E the same was rejected, without verifying the fulfillment of the exemption entries under Sl. No.515A and 516 of Notification No.50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 which are subject to certain conditions under Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017, and upheld this contradictory original orders, in the same Order-in-Appeal i.e., impugned order dated 21.02.2023. Thus, in our considered view is a clear case of non-application of the mind and thus the impugned order dated 21.02.2023, is liable to be set aside on these grounds alone.