1987 (3) TMI 347 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of refund claim based on rescinded notification.
2. Classification of imported goods under different headings.
3. Availability of concessional assessment under specific notifications.
4. Interpretation of relevant tariff headings and notifications.

Analysis:
The case involves the appellants, M/s. Boots Company (India) Ltd., importing frozen ox pancreas glands and small ox pancreas glands, presenting a bill of entry on 5-3-1979 for assessment at a concessional rate. However, their refund claim of Rs. 2,72,479.50 was rejected by the Assistant Collector and the Appellate Collector on the grounds that the notification granting the concessional rate had been rescinded by a subsequent notification, rendering the benefit unavailable at the time of import.

Upon appeal, the appellants argued that subsequent notifications exempted pancreas falling under different chapters, indicating the government's intention to exempt pancreas from customs duty. However, the Tribunal held that it cannot grant relief based on alleged government oversight. The Tribunal emphasized that the rescinded notification on 1-3-1979 rendered the concessional rate unavailable on 5-3-1979, the date of the bill of entry, upholding the lower authorities' decision to reject the refund claim.

Furthermore, the appellants contended that the imported goods should be classified under Chapter 30 for eligibility under a different notification. However, the Tribunal clarified that the goods, being frozen glands and not dried, do not fall under the specific heading for concessional assessment, thereby dismissing the claim that the goods should be classified under Chapter 30.

The Tribunal also addressed the appellant's argument regarding the interpretation of the tariff headings and explanatory notes. Despite the appellant's reference to the BTN comments covering frozen glands, the Tribunal pointed out that the relevant classification specifically pertains to dried glands, excluding frozen glands. Therefore, the claim that the goods could be classified under a different heading for concessional assessment was deemed unsubstantiated.

Conclusively, the Tribunal confirmed the lower authorities' decisions, dismissing the appeal and upholding the rejection of the refund claim based on the rescinded notification and the correct classification of the imported goods under the tariff headings.