9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (6) TMI 662 - AT - CustomsClassification - Appellants have declared the imported items as Crude Palm Oil (Industrial grade) - However, the appellants took a stand that since the goods imported by them did not fulfil the criteria of definition of Crude Palm Oil given in the Notification No. 120/2003-Cus, and Para 7 of the Circular of Notification No. 85/2003, the imported product has to be classified under CTH 1511 90 90 - In this case Commissioner has rightly observed that in first instance, the goods have to be classified based on the tariff heading and the description - In that case the appellants had also claimed that there is nothing on record to show that the assessable value, acid value and Carotene oil in question conforming to the definition of Crude Palm Oil contained in Notification No. 120/2003-Cus and therefore, it has to be classified as Palm Oil within group - find that the Commissioner has followed the correct principles of classification and if appellants wanted to claim an exemption, they were required to show that the product imported by them does not fulfil the definition of Crude Palm Oil given in the relevant notification.
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Crude Palm Oil under the appropriate Customs Tariff Heading (CTH). 2. Eligibility for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. 3. Reliance on test reports and circulars for classification and duty assessment. Detailed Analysis: 1. Classification of Crude Palm Oil: The appellants filed a Bill of Entry for Crude Palm Oil (Edible grade) on 15-9-2003, classifying it under CTH 1511 10 00 and claiming a concessional rate of duty under Sr. No. 34 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The department classified the oil under CTH 1511 90 90 based on a chemical examiner's test report, which showed the oil did not meet the requirements of Crude Palm Oil as per CBEC Circular No. 85/2003. The appellants argued that the classification should be based on the tariff heading and HSN definition, which considers oil crude if it has undergone no processing other than decantation, centrifugation, or filtration. The Chemical Examiner admitted during cross-examination that he could not determine if the oil had undergone such processes. The tribunal found that the imported product should be classified under CTH 1511 10 00 as Crude Palm Oil. 2. Eligibility for Concessional Rate of Duty: The appellants claimed the benefit of concessional duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. The department denied this benefit, stating the oil did not meet the specific definition of Crude Palm Oil given in Notification No. 120/2003-Cus, which requires an acid value of 2% or more and total carotenoids in the range of 500-2500 mg/kg. The tribunal noted that the definition in the notification is for the purpose of that notification only and cannot alter the tariff heading. Since the appellants did not claim the benefit of Notification No. 120/2003-Cus, the tribunal held that the product should be assessed based on the tariff value as Crude Palm Oil under CTH 1511 10 00. 3. Reliance on Test Reports and Circulars: The department relied on the test report and CBEC Circular No. 85/2003 for classification. The tribunal observed that the circular issued for duty assessment cannot redefine tariff headings. The proper procedure would have been to amend the tariff by adding a chapter note defining Crude Palm Oil. The tribunal concluded that the reliance on the circular was misplaced and that the product should be classified based on the tariff heading and HSN definition. Conclusion: The tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the first consignment, classifying the product as Crude Palm Oil under CTH 1511 10 00 and eligible for assessment on the basis of tariff value. The appeal regarding the second consignment was rejected, as the appellants failed to prove that the imported product did not meet the definition of Crude Palm Oil given in the relevant notification. The tribunal emphasized that classification should be based on the tariff heading and HSN definition, not on circulars or test reports that do not align with these criteria.
|
