2023 (1) TMI 1318 - AT - Customs

Exemption from Customs Duty - import of Boron Ore - exemption under serial No. 113 of Customs Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 for the period 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2017 and under serial No. 130 of Customs Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017 - period after 01.07.2017 - test reports available on record but not perused - violation of principles of natural justice. Denial of exemption on the ground that the Boron Ore imported by the appellant is not naturally mined Boron Ore but the impurities have been removed from the product therefore, the same is concentrated Boron Ore which is not eligible for exemption notification. HELD THAT - The exemption under the aforesaid notification is provided to goods viz. Boron Ore . From the perusal of the finding of the adjudicating authority, the test report of the product shows that the goods is Boron Ore however, the same obtained after removal of impurities. The adjudicating authority has relied upon Wikipedia and Website for the meaning of Ore . When the test reports are available on record, there is no need to go to the website and Wikipedia. Whether the goods will remain as Ore after removal of impurities has been considered in various judgments cited by the appellants. However, the adjudicating authority has not properly considered various defence submission made by the appellants and the judgments relied upon by the appellants. The matter needs to be reconsidered in the light of the test reports and judgments relied upon by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the import of 'Boron Ore' by the appellants is eligible for exemption under specific Customs Notifications.

Analysis:
The issue in this case revolves around the eligibility of the appellants' import of 'Boron Ore' for exemption under Customs Notifications. The counsel for the appellants argued that the lower authorities denied the exemption on the grounds that the imported Boron Ore had impurities removed, making it concentrated Boron Ore, which they claimed was not eligible for exemption. They contended that only naturally mined Boron Ore should be eligible for the exemption. The counsel presented test reports from two laboratories confirming the imported goods as Boron Ore and cited various judgments to support their argument, emphasizing that once it is established that the goods are Boron Ore, whether concentrated or not, exemption should apply.

The counsel also argued against the invocation of the extended period due to the absence of any suppression of facts. Other advocates representing different appellants reiterated the arguments put forth by the primary counsel. On the contrary, the Assistant Commissioner (AR) for the revenue reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the denial of exemption.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions from both sides and examination of the records, the Tribunal found that the exemption was provided for goods classified as 'Boron Ore.' The test reports confirmed the nature of the goods as Boron Ore, albeit obtained after impurity removal. The Tribunal criticized the adjudicating authority for relying on external sources like Wikipedia and websites for the definition of 'Ore' when test reports were available. The Tribunal emphasized that the goods' classification as Ore post-impurity removal had been addressed in the judgments cited by the appellants, which the adjudicating authority failed to adequately consider.

As a result, the Tribunal concluded that the matter needed to be reconsidered in light of the test reports and judgments presented by the appellants. All issues were left open, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were allowed by remanding the case to the adjudicating authority for further review. The judgment was pronounced in open court on 25.01.2023.