2009 (7) TMI 314 - AT - Customs

Classification of the goods i.e., Rigenera NP 7.11 - The crucial issue involved in this appeal is whether the goods imported by the appellant contained Nitrate and Phosphate. - The chemical report of Indian Veterinary Research Institute and Deen Dayal Upadhyay University proved that Nitrate was absent in Rigenera NP 7.11 imported by the appellant. The goods imported was only subject matter of test report. The appellant has not brought out any material to suggest that the goods imported were used as fertilizer in this country. Nor there is any literature showed to us to prove that the goods were imported as fertilizer in large scale commercially, to serve purpose of agricultural. Also no material has showed to us to prove that import of such goods were as fertiliser and that is financially and economically viable for massive use in agricultural. When test reports of technical institutions are seen, it does not appeal to common sense to appreciate that animal feed is also possible to be used as fertilizer in this country. It is well known to every citizen of this country that to make price of the fertilizer affordable, Government of India gives subsidy for the welfare of farmers. Therefore use of the imported goods as fertilizer is inconceivable. This view is well supported by the laboratory test report. Accordingly Revenue s claim that the goods should be rightly classified under Chapter 2309 90 90 remains uncontroverted for which that remains untouched by the order.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods as fertilizer or animal feed.
2. Presence of Nitrate and Phosphate in the imported goods.
3. Allegations of deliberate misdeclaration and confiscation of goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of imported goods
The appellant argued that the goods imported were fertilizers containing Nitrate and Phosphate elements, branded as Rigenera NP 7.11, and not meant for animal feed. The Adjudicating Authority's reliance on reports related to different consignments was contested as impermissible under the law. The appellant claimed that technical studies supported the use of the imported goods as fertilizer, challenging the classification under Heading 2309 90 90.

Issue 2: Presence of Nitrate and Phosphate
The Respondent contended that chemical testing by Indian Veterinary Research Institute and Deen Dayal Upadhyay University revealed the absence of Nitrates and the presence of Protein elements in the imported goods. Reports suggested that the goods were composed of meat and bone meal of cattle origin, contradicting the appellant's claims. The absence of Nitrates and Phosphates in the goods imported was emphasized to support the classification under Heading 2309 90 90.

Issue 3: Allegations of deliberate misdeclaration
The Respondent presented evidence, including chemical analysis and oral statements, indicating that the imported goods were used for animal feed, leading to the proprietor's arrest for importing banned products. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that the goods were not fertilizers as claimed by the appellant, based on evidence of deliberate misdeclaration. The decision to classify the goods under Heading 2309 90 90 and uphold the confiscation was justified by the gathered evidence and investigation outcomes.

In the final judgment, the Tribunal upheld the Adjudication order, emphasizing that the imported goods did not contain Nitrate and Phosphate elements as claimed by the appellant. The lack of evidence supporting the goods' use as fertilizers in the country, coupled with the laboratory test reports, reinforced the classification under Chapter 2309 90 90. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the evidence presented and the reasons provided by the Adjudicating Authority, indicating no grounds for disturbance in the decision.