The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that 50% customs duty payable on the e-bikes in Completely Knocked Down (CKD) condition.
The bench of Dr. Rachna Gupta (Judicial Member) and Hemambika R. Priya (Technical Member) has observed that the entry at S.No. 531A of Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017 cites three situations with three different rates of duties. S.No. 531A(1)(a) required duty at the rate of 15%, 531A(1)(b) required duty at the rate of 25% and S.No. 531A(2) required duty at the rate of 50%. Apparently thee-bikes in Completely Knocked Down (CKD) condition do not fall under 1(a) and 1(b) of 531A, hence the benefit of the Notification No. 50/2017 has rightly been denied.
The appellant/assessee is manufacturer of e-bikes and in routine course of business, imported a consignment of E-Bike in CKD Condition YUG; E-Bike in CKD Condition (M3); and Electric Spare Parts under contextual Bill of Entry No. 5864756 dated 28.11.2019
The appellant paid 50% duty as a benefit in terms of Notification No. 50/2017-Cus. dated 30.06.2017 as per entry at S. NO. 531A(1)(b) of the said notification. However, on 100% examination of goods in presence of appellant’s Customs House Agent (CHA), the goods were opined to be part of e-bike as the goods were not containing batter/battery pack and electric compressor, hence, were denied to be called as e-bikes in CKD-Kit [HS code 8711 (1) (b)].
It was alleged that the goods imported rather appeared to fall under HS code 8711 (2) which attracts BCD at the rate of 50% on the goods at S.No. 1 and 2 above. The goods at S.No. 3 are admitted to invite duty/BCD at the rate of 15% only.
On being informed of this mis-declaration the appellant vide letter dated 05.12.2019 agreed to pay duty at the rate of 50% and also agreed for change of CTH of goods. However, vide a subsequent letter dated 10.12.2019, the appellant informed the assessing authority that the duty was paid under protest.
Vide a subsequent letter dated 25.01.2020, the appellant requested for speaking order in the matter, however the Deputy Commissioner reassessed the duty at the rate of 50%. The appeal against the assessment has been rejected.
The tribunal remanded the matter to the original adjudicating authority. The authority is also required to give the final findings with respect to the said reference within the period of three months from the date of receiving this order and after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
Case Details
Case Title: M/s. Ayaan Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import)
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 50998 of 2021 [DB]
Date: 17.03.2025
Counsel For Appellant: Reena Rawat
Counsel For Respondent: Rajesh Singh
