2010 (3) TMI 707 - HC - Customs

Classification - prawn feed - classification of the goods permits an investigation into the purpose of the legislature in fixing a duty for particular goods as well the purpose for which the goods are used - imported product was desired to be classified by the importer under the heading 2309 which includes products used as animal feed - According to the customs this products was classifiable under the heading 0511.99 - Supreme Court decision as an authority for the proposition that any product imported and declared as Brine Shrimp eggs would necessarily have to be classified in the other category under the heading 0511

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods as 'prawn feed' or otherwise, misdeclaration of goods, necessity of a factual inquiry, validity of the tribunal's decision based on previous cases, procedural irregularities in passing orders without proper assessment or test reports.

Analysis:
1. Classification Dispute: The writ petitioner, an importer, imported 'Artemia Cyst (Brine Shrimp eggs)' and declared it as 'prawn feed' for duty assessment purposes. However, the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence contended that the goods were misdeclared and should be classified differently, attracting a higher duty rate. The key issue was whether the nature and character of the imported product remained the same even after undergoing processes like nurturing and incubation to become 'prawn feed.'

2. Legal Interpretation: The judgment emphasized the importance of correctly classifying goods for duty purposes based on their description and intended use. It highlighted that the essential nature and character of a product should remain the same despite any changes post-importation, as long as it fulfills the specified purpose in the classification. The judgment referred to legal precedents to support the argument that if imported goods contained embryos that could be nurtured into prawn feed, they should be classified accordingly.

3. Procedural Irregularities: The court noted procedural irregularities in the assessment process, including the lack of final assessment despite provisional assessment, issuance of show cause notice based on provisional assessment, and absence of test reports during provisional assessment. It criticized the authorities for passing orders without proper assessment or providing the writ petitioner with an opportunity to substantiate their claims.

4. Necessity of Factual Inquiry: The judgment stressed the need for a factual inquiry to determine whether the imported goods indeed contained embryos or live organisms that could be nurtured into prawn feed. It highlighted the importance of allowing the writ petitioner to present evidence and counter the revenue's claims before passing any final orders.

5. Setting Aside Tribunal's Decision: Ultimately, the court set aside the tribunal's decision and directed the Commissioner of Customs to rehear and re-decide the matter within a specified timeframe, considering the observations made in the judgment. The writ application was allowed, emphasizing the importance of conducting a factual inquiry and following proper assessment procedures in such cases.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the classification dispute, legal interpretation of goods description, procedural irregularities, necessity of a factual inquiry, and set aside the tribunal's decision due to the failure to conduct a proper assessment and provide the writ petitioner with a fair opportunity to present evidence.