2014 (10) TMI 591 - AT - Customs

Clearance of crude oil - whether the Crude Palm Oil imported by the appellant can be cleared availing exemption under Notification No. 12/2012, dated 17-3-2012 - Held that - Taking note of the regulations and also taking note of the fact that appellants are expected to refine the oil and thereafter only release the oil into the market and therefore at the stage of import, the oil cannot be considered as a non-edible crude, Hon ble High Court of Gujarat as well as the Hon ble High Court of Calcutta held that exemption benefit under Notification No. 21/2002 has to be allowed. The present notification is a successor notification of the earlier notification and the conditions remain the same. - Following decision of Cargill India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. Union of India reported in 2013 (6) TMI 40 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the imported Crude Palm Oil can be cleared availing exemption under Notification No. 12/2012, dated 17-3-2012.

Analysis:
1. The issue at hand revolves around the eligibility of the appellant to claim exemption under Notification No. 12/2012 for the imported Crude Palm Oil. The specific entry in question is Sl. No. 51(II)(A) which outlines the conditions for availing the exemption. The critical condition is that the importer must follow the procedure set out in the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996.

2. The dispute further delves into the testing and classification of the imported product. The appellant's product was tested by the Food Analyst, revealing an acid content of 10.14. Subsequently, the Central Food Laboratory conducted another test, reporting the acid content as 10.06. The authorities initiated proceedings to deny the exemption, arguing that the product did not qualify as edible Crude Palm Oil as per Food Safety and Standards Regulations, 2011.

3. The appellant contended that they were not provided with the reports of the Chemical Examiner and Central Revenue Control Laboratory in a timely manner. They emphasized the reliance on the reports of the Food Analyst and Central Food Laboratory, while the CRCL report was overlooked. Citing precedents and decisions from various High Courts, the appellant argued that even if the acid value exceeded 10, the oil could still be considered edible after refinement, as mandated by regulations.

4. Considering the arguments and precedents presented, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant was indeed eligible for the exemption under the notification. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, granting any consequential relief to the appellant. Acknowledging the appellant's financial losses, the Tribunal approved the issuance of the order by Dasti to expedite the process.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal points, arguments, and decisions made by the Tribunal regarding the eligibility of the appellant for the exemption under consideration.