Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (1) TMI 624 - AT - Customs


Issues:
Customs duty demand under Notification No.26/2000-Cus, penalty imposition under Sections 114(A) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Analysis:
1. Customs Duty Demand: The appellant imported a consignment labeled as "RBD Palmolein Mixture" from Sri Lanka, seeking exemption under Notification No.26/2000-Cus. However, the adjudicating authority found misdeclaration, stating the goods were classifiable under CH 1511 instead of CH 1518, thus denying the concessional duty rate. The penalties were imposed accordingly.

2. Appellant's Contention: The appellant argued that the imported mixture was compliant with ISFTA criteria, containing 80% RBD Palmolein Oil and 20% coconut oil, as per Sri Lankan export permissions. They claimed an oversight in classification, supported by the exporter's application and opinion of Sri Lankan Customs Authorities.

3. Judicial Analysis: The Tribunal considered the test report certifying the goods as RBD Palmolein, indicating edibility. The endorsement from Sri Lankan Customs Authorities supported the appellant's classification claim under CTH 15.17. The Country of Origin Certificate and compliance with DOO Rules, 2000 were crucial in determining the goods' origin and classification change at a 4-digit level.

4. Decision: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant satisfied Country of Origin requirements, making them eligible for the Notification No.26/2000-Cus benefit. The misclassification was deemed an oversight, and the appeal was allowed, rendering the impugned order unsustainable.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates