2013 (11) TMI 393 - AT - Customs

Import of Crude Palm Oil - high content of Acid about 10% - applicability of exemption notification 21/2002 cus dated 1.3.2003 - Held that - The Notification prescribed the acid value of 4 or more to attract nil rate of duty. The Board prescribed maximum acid value of 10 vide Circular No. 40/2001-Cus., dated 13-7-2001. In the case of Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (6) TMI 40 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , the Hon ble High Court disapproved the Board s view by observing that the entry in the Notification should not be construed by taking aid of the provisions of Food Adulteration Rules and that the alteration of acid value from 4 or more to between 4 & 10 would directly violate the language of the Notification. In the result, the importer in that case received the benefit of the Notification. Like the consignment of CPO imported by Cargill India Pvt. Ltd., the goods imported by the appellant also had acid value above 10. In both the cases, apparently, the goods satisfied the description of Sl. No. 30(II)(A) - stay granted.

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery sought by the appellant regarding demands of customs duty, penalties under Sections 112, 114A, and 114AA of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
The appellant filed an application seeking waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for various demands, including customs duty on crude palm oil, penalties under different sections of the Customs Act. The duty in question was related to Bills of Entry filed by the appellant claiming exemption under specific notifications. The issue arose when the goods were found to have an acid value above the prescribed limit, leading to a denial of the exemption and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act.

The appellant's senior advocate cited a judgment from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case, where the acid value of the imported product was also above the specified limit. The High Court had ruled against denying the exemption based solely on the acid value exceeding the limit. Relying on this precedent, the appellant sought waiver and stay of recovery.

Upon review, the Tribunal found a prima facie case in favor of the appellant based on the Gujarat High Court's judgment. It was noted that the goods imported by the appellant conformed to the description in the relevant notification, which required an acid value of "4 or more" for duty exemption. The Tribunal highlighted that the High Court had disapproved the Board's interpretation, emphasizing that altering the acid value criteria would violate the notification's language. As the appellant's case aligned with the precedent and the goods met the description criteria, the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery was granted for the adjudged dues.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, granting the waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery for the demands in question based on the alignment of the case with the precedent set by the Gujarat High Court's judgment.