2007 (2) TMI 427 - AT - Customs

Issues involved:
1. Delay in filing the appeal by the Department.
2. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 20/2006-Cus. for imported goods.
3. Interpretation of the description of goods under the notification.
4. Classification of the imported item as aquatic feed, poultry feed, or cattle feed.
5. Consideration of the imported item as an input for the manufacture of shrimp feed.
6. Claim that the imported item is directly usable as feed for poultry and cattle.
7. Assessment of the grounds raised in the appeal.

1. Delay in filing the appeal:
The Department's appeal was delayed by seven days. The Tribunal, after considering explanations, condoned the delay and proceeded to hear the case.

2. Denial of benefit under Notification No. 20/2006-Cus.:
The Department proposed to deny the benefit of the Notification to the importer, alleging that the imported item was not finished aquatic feed but an input for its manufacture. The assessing authority upheld this view, leading to the final assessment. The appeal by the importer against this assessment was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals), prompting the Department's appeal.

3. Interpretation of the description of goods under the notification:
The key question was whether the imported goods matched the description in the Notification, which exempted goods falling under Chapter 23 of the Customs Tariff Act from additional duty. The focus was on determining if the imported item could be considered within the scope of the goods described in the Notification.

4. Classification of the imported item:
The dispute revolved around whether the imported item could be classified as aquatic feed, poultry feed, or cattle feed as per the description in the Notification.

5. Consideration as input for shrimp feed:
The Department argued that the imported item was an input for shrimp feed manufacture and not the finished product. The Tribunal considered this claim but ultimately favored the respondents.

6. Claim of direct usability as feed for poultry and cattle:
The importer claimed that the imported item was directly usable as feed for poultry and cattle. This claim was supported by references to authoritative sources and definitions, including 'S.B. Sarkar' and HSN Notes under Heading 23.

7. Assessment of the grounds raised in the appeal:
The Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, stating that there was no material to support the claim that the item was only an input for shrimp feed manufacture. The Tribunal also favored the respondents regarding the classification of the item as additives.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, emphasizing the eligibility of the imported item for the benefit of the Notification based on its classification and intended use as feed for poultry and cattle, contrary to being solely an input for shrimp feed manufacture.

← Previous Next →