- within Transport and Corporate/Commercial Law topic(s)
- with Finance and Tax Executives
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy and Law Firm industries
The CESTAT Chennai has allowed assessee’s appeal in a case where the Revenue department had alleged misdeclaration of imports by importing goods in CKD form as parts. The dispute in Subash Iyappan v. Commissioner involved import of e-vehicles, allegedly in CKD form and thus being not eligible for benefit of reduced customs duty. The Tribunal for this purpose noted the following:
- Even consignments covered under the same Import General Manifest did not contain all essential components of an electric vehicle.
- Bills of Entry analysis demonstrated that various components such as frames, motors, controllers and assemblies were imported in a fragmented manner, without any co-relation on a consignment-wise basis to constitute a complete kit. Several consignments found to contain only isolated components while many had not essential components.
- Battery packs, which are critical for propulsion, were not imported along. In electric vehicles battery is not merely a component but is analogous to engine in an internal combustion engine vehicle.
- No quantification exercise carried out by Department to demonstrate number of complete kits imported.
- No correlation of the availability of essential components, including batteries, on a consignment-wise or period-wise basis.
- Imports were made through multiple Bills of Entry at different points of time.
- Rule 2(a) of the Interpretative Rules can be invoked only on goods ‘as presented’.
- Decisions on classification under Rule 2(a) turn on their own facts, and no universal principle can be applied.
According to the Tribunal, the Department thus failed to establish any co-relation of components to form a complete article and instead built its case on artificial aggregation of disparate imports over a period of time. The Department’s contention that the goods possessed ‘essential character’ of complete e-vehicles, was thus rejected.
The assessee-importer was represented by Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan Attorneys here.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]