The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, dismissed an appeal against an order confirming the misclassification of imported goods and the demand of differential customs duty, interest, and penalties. The appellant, M/s. Nichirin Imperial Autoparts India Pvt. Ltd., imported automobile brake components and was found to have misdeclared the classification of three products during a customs audit.
1. Protector Tube: The appellant classified it under CTH 40091100 (vulcanized rubber tubes). The Department relied on the supplier's catalogue (RUD No.8) showing the product is 100% PVC. The Tribunal held that PVC tubes fall under CTH 39172310, and the benefit of Customs Notification No.46/2011 (ASEAN Trade Agreement) claimed under the wrong CTH was rightly denied.
2. Bracket: The appellant classified it under CTH 83025000/73269099 (base metal mountings/other iron/steel articles). The Department claimed CTH 87089900 (parts of motor vehicles). Applying Section Notes of Sections XV and XVII of the Tariff and GRI Rule 3(a)/(c), the Tribunal held that parts principally used in motor vehicles must be classified under Chapter 87. Since the bracket forms an integral part of brake hose assemblies used in motor vehicles and is not of general-purpose use, CTH 87089900 is correct.
3. Connector: The appellant classified it under CTH 3917 (plastic fittings). The Tribunal noted Chapter Note 2(t) to Chapter 39 excludes "parts of vehicles of Section XVII". As the connectors are admittedly parts of brake hose assemblies for automobiles, they are excluded from Chapter 39 and correctly classifiable under CTH 87089900/87141090.
4. Limitation and Penalties: The Tribunal held that the appellant's admission of misdeclaration for other products, voluntary payment of differential duty, and the fact that earlier Bills of Entry showed correct classification (later changed to avail duty benefits) evidenced intentional suppression. Thus, the extended period of limitation under Section 28(4) was rightly invoked. Penalties under Sections 114(A) and 117 and confiscation under Section 111(m) were upheld.
The Tribunal affirmed the Order-in-Original and dismissed the appeal.
