2003 (6) TMI 352 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the imported item as "crude iodine" or "resublimed iodine."
2. Eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 23/94.
3. Evaluation of the purity standards and technical specifications.
4. Examination of import documents and packing details.
5. Consideration of technical opinions and literature.
6. Allegations of misdeclaration and undervaluation.

Issue-wise Analysis:

1. Classification of the imported item as "crude iodine" or "resublimed iodine":
The primary issue was whether the imported iodine, with a purity of 99.5% to 99.8%, should be classified as "crude iodine" or "resublimed iodine." The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the imported item is crude iodine based on its technical characteristics, such as the presence of impurities (Sulphate, Chloride, Bromide, and Iron) and its physical appearance (solid-laminated grayish black). The mode of packing also indicated it was crude iodine, as it was imported in bulk and in drums, unlike resublimed iodine, which is shipped in smaller quantities.

2. Eligibility for the benefit of Notification No. 23/94:
The Commissioner (Appeals) granted the benefit of Notification No. 23/94, which extends to crude iodine. The original authority had rejected this benefit based on the Central Revenues Control Laboratory (CRCL) report, which treated iodine with 99.5% to 99.8% purity as "other than crude iodine." However, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that even if the goods conformed to pharmaceutical standards, they could still be considered crude iodine due to overlapping purity standards.

3. Evaluation of the purity standards and technical specifications:
The original authority relied solely on the CRCL report, which stated that iodine with 99.5% to 99.8% purity should be considered "other than crude iodine." However, the Commissioner (Appeals) noted that the laboratory reports lacked specific details on impurities and did not evaluate the samples to rule out that the goods were not crude. The technical literature, including the Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology by Kirk Othmer, indicated that crude iodine might pass pharmaceutical grades despite high purity.

4. Examination of import documents and packing details:
The Commissioner (Appeals) emphasized that all import documents, including shipping documents, invoices, and packing lists, clearly indicated the item as crude iodine. The mode of packing (1000 Kgs. in bulk and in drums) further supported this classification. The original authority did not contest the declaration of the item as crude iodine.

5. Consideration of technical opinions and literature:
The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the original authority to reconsider the evidence, including technical literature from sources like the Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology and the Encyclopaedia of Industrial Chemical Analysis. These sources provided specifications and packing details that supported the classification of the imported item as crude iodine. The technical opinion from the Head of the Department of Chemistry, IIT Madras, also supported this classification.

6. Allegations of misdeclaration and undervaluation:
The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that there was no allegation of misdeclaration or undervaluation by the importer. The valuation of the imported item was accepted by the department, and the difference in value between crude iodine and resublimed iodine was not contested. The Tribunal's judgment in Sesu International v. CC, Calcutta, supported the view that merely satisfying pharmaceutical standards does not automatically classify an item as a drug, and other uses must be considered.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, finding that the imported item was indeed crude iodine and eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 23/94. The evidence, including technical literature, import documents, and packing details, supported this classification. The appeals filed by Revenue were rejected, and the orders of the lower authority were set aside.