2007 (4) TMI 22 - AT - Customs

Classification Revenue contended that the product imported by the appellant is not lovage it is ajawain classifiable under SH No. 091099 and it assessable value also increases Held same item is known under different names, it should be given same treatment

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods as Lovage or Ajwain seeds, Valuation of the goods, SAARC agreement eligibility for license-free import.

Classification Issue Analysis:
The appellant imported goods declared as Lovage but Customs authorities classified them as Ajwain seeds, requiring a specific license. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this classification based on ITC (HS) Classification EXIM Policy 1997-2002. The appellant argued Lovage and Ajwain are the same, but the department disagreed, citing separate classifications. The Commissioner found the goods to be Ajwain seeds based on sample comparison and upheld the confiscation and penalty. The Tribunal noted differing practices in classification and valuation for identical goods in a similar case and ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that if the same item is known under different names, it should receive consistent treatment.

Valuation Issue Analysis:
Regarding valuation, the appellant argued for assessment based on transaction value under Rule 4 of Custom Valuation Rules. The Customs authorities had compared the goods with contemporaneous imports and increased the assessable value. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where assessment at transaction value was accepted for Lovage consignments. The Tribunal found inconsistencies in the valuation by the Customs authorities and ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the enhancement of value, redemption fine, and penalty.

SAARC Agreement Eligibility Analysis:
The appellant contended that under the SAARC agreement, Lovage imported from Pakistan is eligible for license-free import. The Customs authorities argued the goods were Ajwain seeds based on a market enquiry and samples. The Tribunal noted that the market enquiry report was not available and samples were not present, emphasizing the importance of consistent treatment for goods known under different names. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that goods known as Lovage in Pakistan should be afforded the treatment due to Lovage under the SAARC agreement.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant based on the issues of classification, valuation, and SAARC agreement eligibility for license-free import.