FRONTIER TRADING Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration in this appeal is the classification of goods that the appellant imported and cleared through Bombay Custom House. In the bill of entry that it presented for their clearance, it described them as "magnetic accupressure treating instrument." The classification was claimed in Heading 9019.10 of the Tariff. The imports took place during the period between 1997 to 2001. In August of 2000, the department searched the premises of the appellant, conducted some enquiries including recording a statement of Asan Pandit, the Managing Director of the imported firm between September of that year and April next year. Twenty five notices were issued to the appellant. These notices claimed that the product was correctly assessable in Heading 9404.29 and proposed to recover duty short levied. Another notice was issued on 8 -12 -2000 relating to goods imported by the applicant and not cleared. This notice too proposed classification in Heading 9404.29, proposed confiscation of the goods pending clearance under Clause (m) of Section 111, recovery of duty on goods cleared between June 1997 to July, 2000 invoking the extended period contained in Sub -section (1) of Section 28 of the Act and proposed penalty on the importer. In the order impugned in this appeal, the Commissioner has adjudicated on all the notices. He has confirmed the classification of the goods in Heading 9404.29. He has held that the extended period invoked in the notice last referred to cannot be applied and dropped the demand for Rs. 17.92 crores approx. He has demanded duty short levied of Rs. 16.03 crores approx. on goods imported between March and July, 2000; he has confirmed the classification under Heading 9404.29 with regard to goods provisionally assessed and cleared and asked for recovery of Rs. 6.46 crores as a consequence. It is necessary to record before proceeding to record and deal with the argument of parties, to describe the product under consideration "The total sleeping system" as the appellant calls it, consist of a mattress, pillow and quilt. We think it appropriate to reproduce the description of the product as set forth by the appellant in appeal, which also contains a claim with regard to the functions of the various components of it.

(2.) There is no description of the pillow and the quilt.

(3.) Heading 9019.10 of the Customs Tariff of this heading reads as follows.