9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
Classification of imported goods as Vitamin C under Anti-dumping duty notification, classification of raw material for Vitamin C, time-barred demands, mis-statement and suppression of facts in import declaration, applicability of extended period for demand of duty. Classification of Imported Goods as Vitamin C under Anti-dumping Duty Notification: The appellants imported L-3 Ketothreohexuronic Acid Lactone (crude) and claimed it should not be classified as Vitamin C under Heading 2936.27 for the purpose of Anti-dumping duty. They argued that the imported goods were raw material in crude form, used for manufacturing Vitamin C, but were of yellow color and purity less than 96%, unlike the final product which is white and over 99% pure. They contended that the Anti-dumping duty notification specifically targets Vitamin C and not its raw material or crude form. The appellants also highlighted that if the intention was to charge duty on raw materials, it would have been explicitly notified, similar to the case of Crude Caffeine under a different notification. The tribunal considered these arguments and directed the appellants to pre-deposit a specified amount towards duty pending further proceedings. Classification of Raw Material for Vitamin C: The Revenue argued that the imported product, L-3 Ketothreohexuronic Acid, should be classified as Vitamin C under sub-heading 2936.27, citing Chapter Note 1(a) to Chapter 29 which classifies chemically defined organic compounds under respective headings in Chapter 29, regardless of impurities or grade. They contended that even if the imported product had impurities and did not meet Pharmacopoeia grade, it should still be classified as Vitamin C. The Revenue further alleged that the appellants did not declare the product as Vitamin C in the import declaration but used its chemical name, misleading the department and claiming assessment under a different sub-heading to evade Anti-dumping duty. They argued that this constituted willful misstatement and suppression of facts, justifying the application of the extended period for demanding duty. The tribunal considered these arguments but allowed the appellants to waive the pre-deposit of the balance duty and penalty pending compliance with the initial deposit requirement. Time-Barred Demands: The appellants contended that the demands raised by the authorities were time-barred as the Show Cause Notice was issued beyond the statutory six-month period and without reviewing the earlier assessment. They argued that since the import documents accurately described the goods and were assessed by the Customs Authorities within the stipulated time frame, the demands should be considered time-barred. The tribunal acknowledged this argument and directed the appellants to make a specified pre-deposit towards duty within a month, pending further proceedings. Mis-Statement and Suppression of Facts in Import Declaration: The Revenue alleged that the appellants misled the department by not declaring the imported product as Vitamin C in the import declaration but using its chemical name to claim a different assessment and exemption. They argued that this amounted to willful misstatement and suppression of facts, justifying the application of the extended period for demanding duty. The tribunal considered this argument but allowed the appellants to waive the pre-deposit of the balance duty and penalty pending compliance with the initial deposit requirement. The tribunal, after hearing the arguments from both sides, found the issues in the appeals contestable on both merits and limitation. They directed the appellants to pre-deposit a specific amount towards duty within a month and report compliance by a specified date. Upon such compliance, the pre-deposit of the remaining duty and penalty would be waived, and the regular hearing of the case would proceed. The tribunal took into account the confiscated goods worth a specified amount that were with the department while making this decision.
|
