2013 (12) TMI 989 - AT - Customs

Import of Barium Carbonate - Registration under the Insecticide Act, 1968 not obtained - Penalty u/s 112(a) - Held that - As per the Public Notice, if the assessee is able to prove that the imported goods would be used for purpose other than insecticide, the appellant is not required to register with CIB and the goods are to be released by Classifying the item under 2836 60 00 as claimed by the appellant. The Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Suchitra Components Ltd. v. CCE, Guntur 2007 (1) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA held that beneficial circular to be applied retrospectively. In the impugned order, the benefit of the said Public Notice is denied only on the ground that benefit is claimed after the publication of public notice - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Chapter Heading No. 2836 60 00, requirement of registration under the Insecticide Act, 1968, confiscation of goods, penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Classification of Goods:
The appellant imported "Barium Carbonate" under Chapter Heading No. 2836 60 00, claiming it was used for manufacturing glass/ceramic, not for insecticide purposes. The adjudicating authority held the goods liable for confiscation as they were covered under the Insecticide Act, 1968, and the appellant had not registered with the Central Insecticide Board (CIB). The appellant challenged this decision.

Legal Submissions:
The appellant's advocate argued that the goods were correctly classified under CTH 2836 60 00 and were not required to be registered with the CIB as they were not intended for insecticidal purposes. Reference was made to Public Notice No. 94/2011 to support this claim. The respondent reiterated the impugned order.

Public Notice Interpretation:
Public Notice No. 94/2011 clarified that items listed under Schedule 3 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, intended for non-insecticidal purposes, were exempt from registration with the CIB. The notice outlined procedures for importers to declare the intended purpose of goods at the time of clearance. The Tribunal emphasized that if the appellant proved the goods were for purposes other than insecticide, they were not required to register with the CIB.

Beneficial Circular Application:
The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court's decision in Suchitra Components Ltd. v. CCE, Guntur, stating that a beneficial circular should be applied retrospectively. The Tribunal found the denial of the benefit of the Public Notice in the impugned order, based on the timing of the claim, unsustainable. Following the legal precedent, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, subject to compliance with the conditions of the Public Notice.

Conclusion:
After considering submissions from both parties and analyzing the relevant Public Notice, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal. The decision highlighted the importance of correctly interpreting legal provisions and beneficial circulars to ensure fair treatment in customs matters.