2019 (6) TMI 1078 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - MIT-50% and CIT/MIT-14% i.e. 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isithiazolin-3-one - 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one - whether classified under Customs Tariff Heading 2934 99 00 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under CTH 3808 94 00 as disinfectants ? - HELD THAT - The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) in deciding the classification of the imported goods under CTH 3808 94 00 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, ignored the information obtained by the appellant from the Ministry of Agriculture certifying that the goods in question do not fall under the Schedule to the Insecticides Act, being not used as an insecticide but as preservatives. Without any basis, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has unilaterally come to the conclusion that these products are liable to be registered under Insecticides Act since classifiable under CTH 3808 94 00. No evidence has been adduced by the Revenue to establish that these products were used other than preservatives by the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975

Classification of Goods:
The case involved an appeal against the classification of imported goods, namely "MIT-50% and CIT/MIT-14%", as disinfectants under Customs Tariff Heading 3808 94 00 instead of as preservatives under Heading 2934 99 00. The appellant argued that the goods were used as preservatives in finished products to prevent bacterial growth and increase shelf life, not as disinfectants typically used in hospitals and public places. They obtained information from the Ministry of Agriculture stating that the goods were not insecticides but preservatives. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) classified the goods under CTH 3808 94 00, requiring registration under the Insecticides Act. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence from the Revenue to prove the goods were used as disinfectants, supporting the appellant's claim of classification as preservatives.

Decision:
The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in ignoring the Ministry of Agriculture's information certifying the goods as preservatives, not falling under the Insecticides Act. The Tribunal criticized the unilateral conclusion of the Commissioner and the lack of evidence from the Revenue to establish the goods' use as disinfectants. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.