2016 (12) TMI 1723 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Duty free Import or not? - import of disposable sterilized dialyser and micro barrier for filtering blood - Held that - An identical issue has came up before Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Sanwar Agarwal vs. CC 2016 (4) TMI 621 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT , wherein Circular No.19/2013 was set aside as it was not issued under statutory provisions. It was held that executive instruments which have no statutory force, cannot override the law. Any notice, circular guidelines etc. which run contrary to statutory law cannot be enforced. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported items for Customs duty.
2. Validity of Circular imposing Customs duty.
3. Applicability of Circular not issued under statutory provisions.

Classification of imported items for Customs duty:
The case involved the classification of disposable sterilized dialyser and micro barrier for filtering blood imported by the appellants during dialysis. The appellants declared these items as Hemodialysis accessories under heading 9018 9031 of the Central Excise Tariff, claiming duty-free import. However, the department imposed Customs duty on these items as per a Circular. The Tribunal considered the classification issue and set aside the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner, ultimately allowing the appeals with consequential relief.

Validity of Circular imposing Customs duty:
The Tribunal referred to similar issues that came up before the Calcutta High Court and the Kerala High Court, where Circular No. 19/2013 was set aside for not being issued under statutory provisions. The Tribunal highlighted that executive instruments lacking statutory force cannot override the law, as established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous cases. Relying on these precedents, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner, indicating that Circulars running contrary to statutory law cannot be enforced.

Applicability of Circular not issued under statutory provisions:
In analyzing the case, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of Circulars being in line with statutory provisions. Citing judgments from the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court and the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, the Tribunal reiterated that Circulars lacking statutory backing cannot supersede the law. By following the legal principles established by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in previous cases, the Tribunal concluded that Circulars, notices, or guidelines conflicting with statutory law cannot be enforced. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner and allowed the appeals with consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the issues of classification, Circular validity, and statutory provisions, showcasing how legal principles and precedents influenced the Tribunal's decision in favor of the appellants.