2008 (4) TMI 567 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of Customs duty on "Maduramycin Ammonium 1%"
2. Classification of the item under SH 2309.90 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act
3. Dispute regarding the description of the goods for concessional rate of duty under Customs Notification No. 20/99
4. Benefit claimed under Serial No. 21 in the Table annexed to the Notification
5. Comparison with successor-Notification No. 21/2002 dated 1-3-2002
6. Granting of similar benefit to another assessee subsequently
7. Import of "MADURAMYCIN 1% GRANULAR" from China
8. Assessment and revision of the benefit granted
9. Findings of the Commissioner challenged by the assessee
10. Manufacturer's declaration regarding the imported item
11. Establishment of a strong case for the benefit of the Notification

Analysis:
The appeal in this case revolves around the demand of Customs duty on "Maduramycin Ammonium 1%" imported by the appellants seeking clearance at a concessional rate of duty under Customs Notification No. 20/99. The dispute primarily concerns the description of the goods for availing the benefit under Serial No. 21 of the Notification, which covers items falling under Chapter 23 of the Customs Tariff Act. The appellant claimed the benefit based on the item "Maduramycin Ammonium" listed in List 1 appended to the Notification. The crucial argument presented was the extension of similar benefits to another assessee under the successor-Notification No. 21/2002, where "Maduramycin Ammonia" was granted concessional duty at Sl. No. 21 of List 1. This comparison played a significant role in the decision.

Upon review, it was noted that the imported item was intended for use in animal feed, and its classification under Chapter 23 was undisputed. The manufacturer's declaration confirmed the nature of "Maduramycin Ammonium 1%" as the active ingredient with the rest being a carrier, emphasizing the hazardous nature of higher concentrations. The Revenue did not contest this factual claim, leading to the establishment of a strong case for the benefit of the Notification. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, especially in light of the similar benefit granted to another importer under the successor-Notification, and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief. The judgment highlighted the importance of factual evidence and consistency in applying Notification benefits to similarly situated importers.