2009 (11) TMI 778 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in Revenue's appeal
2. Classification of goods imported by respondent under CTH 3105 90 90 or CTH 2835 24 00
3. Interpretation of Fertiliser Control Order in relation to mono potassium phosphate
4. Analysis of Heading 3105 for classification of goods

Condonation of Delay:
The judgment addresses two applications by the Revenue - one for condonation of a 3-day delay in filing the appeal and the other for a stay on the impugned order. The delay is condoned after accepting the explanation provided by the appellant.

Classification of Goods:
The dispute revolves around the classification of goods, specifically mono potassium phosphate, imported by the respondent. The Revenue argues for classification under CTH 2835 24 00, citing Circular No. 44/2001/Cus. and a previous case. The respondent contends that mono potassium phosphate is a fertiliser under CTH 3105, supported by a chemical analysis report and the Fertiliser Control Order. The judgment notes the absence of testing by the department's laboratory on the imported consignment and finds that the goods satisfy the description of Heading 3105.

Interpretation of Fertiliser Control Order:
The Fertiliser Control Order specifies requirements for mono potassium phosphate to be classified as a fertiliser, including minimum phosphate and potash content, along with limits on moisture and sodium content. The judgment highlights the importance of conformity with technical specifications under the Order and notes the lack of testing by the department as a basis for not drawing adverse inferences against the assessee.

Analysis of Heading 3105:
The judgment analyzes Heading 3105, noting that mineral or chemical fertilisers containing phosphorous and potassium fall under SH 3105 60 00. It observes that the goods imported by the respondent meet the criteria for classification under this heading, as they contain both phosphorous and potassium, aligning with the description of the sub-heading. Chapter Note 6 in Chapter 31 further supports the respondent's claim for classification under Heading 3105. The judgment concludes that the stay application filed by the appellant is dismissed based on this analysis.