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 - 2017 (1) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2017 (1) TMI 342 - AT - Customs


Issues Involved:
1. Classification of Boric Acid under Customs Tariff.
2. Applicability of Circular No. 61/2004.
3. Requirement of registration or end-use certificate under the Insecticide Act, 1968.
4. Validity of confiscation and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Boric Acid under Customs Tariff:
The primary issue revolves around the classification of Boric Acid. The appellant argued that Boric Acid should be classified under Chapter 2810, which is freely importable, rather than under Chapter 3808 as an insecticide. The Tribunal referred to the ITC (HS) and previous case law, particularly the Hardware Trading Corporation case, which emphasized that Boric Acid is predominantly used as a raw material and falls under Heading 28.10. The Tribunal noted that the HSN Explanatory Notes, which are a safe guide for interpreting tariff entries, do not classify Boric Acid as an insecticide. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that Boric Acid should be classified under Chapter 28.10.

2. Applicability of Circular No. 61/2004:
The appellant contended that Circular No. 61/2004, which requires a certificate of registration or end-use certificate for Boric Acid, is not applicable. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the Circular cannot override the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act. The Tribunal also referenced the Union of India Vs. Maliakkal Industries Enterprises case, which held that executive orders like Circulars cannot impose restrictions on rights available under the Policy Act. Since the shipment was made before the issuance of the Circular, the Tribunal found that the Circular was not applicable in this case.

3. Requirement of Registration or End-Use Certificate under the Insecticide Act, 1968:
The Tribunal examined whether Boric Acid, being listed in the Schedule to the Insecticide Act, 1968, required registration. The Tribunal noted that the Registration Committee had exempted Boric Acid imported for non-insecticidal use from registration requirements. The Tribunal found no evidence that the imported Boric Acid was used for insecticidal purposes. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that registration under the Insecticide Act was not required for the appellant's import.

4. Validity of Confiscation and Penalty:
Given the findings on the classification and the non-applicability of the Circular and registration requirements, the Tribunal held that the confiscation of the goods and the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority were not sustainable. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence to support the claim that the Boric Acid was used for insecticidal purposes, which would have necessitated registration. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the adjudicating authority's order and allowed the appeal with consequential reliefs.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that Boric Acid is classifiable under Chapter 28.10, the Circular No. 61/2004 was not applicable, and no registration under the Insecticide Act was required for the appellant's import. Therefore, the confiscation and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority were not justified, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates