Case law

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal · 2 Jun 2025

M/S Lulu International Shopping Malls Pvt Ltd vs Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And…

Legal principle

Classification of goods is a matter relating to chargeability and the burden of proof lies squarely upon the Revenue, which must adduce proper evidence and apply the General Rules for Interpretation of the Tariff before disturbing the tariff classification declared by the importer or denying a notified preferential rate.

Court decision

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal, holding that the goods were not shown to merit classification under tariff item 9506 9990, that the declared classification should stand with the corresponding rate of duty, and that the reasons for rule 10 valuation recourse did not pass muster.

Facts

M/s Lulu International Shopping Malls Pvt Ltd imported trampolines and 'tag arenas' from producers in Subic Bay Free Port Zone, Philippines, claiming preferential duty under the ASEAN–India Free Trade Agreement via notification no. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011 issued under section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962. Customs authorities re-classified the goods from tariff item 9506 9190, as declared, to residuary tariff item 9506 9990 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, thereby denying the preferential rate, and also relied on rule 10 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 on the value aspect. The Commissioner of Customs, Kochi decided against the importer in Order-in-Original No. 18/2023-24 dated 27.03.2024, which was appealed to the CESTAT Bengaluru (South Zonal Bench).

Key provisions