2024 (6) TMI 92 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Biofos Mono Calcium Phosphate (BMP) - to be classifiable under tariff heading 2835 2810 or under 2309 9090? - Deliberate attempt to misclassify or not - HELD THAT - The perusal of the CTH 2835 shows that sub heading 283526 specifically covers Phosphates of Calcium other than Di Calcium Phosphate falling under sub heading 2835 2500. It is seen that the entire defense of the appellants is based on the fact that the fluorine content in the product is not an impurity but deliberately left item. If it had been so, the name fluorine contain would have appeared in the composition information or ingredients of the product. In this circumstances there are no merit in the argument that the fluorine contained in the product has been deliberately left and is not in the nature of impurity. In terms of Rule 3(a) the heading which gives most specific description shall be prefer to providing more general description. It is found that sub heading 2835 2610 provides absolute specific description whereas the heading 2309 9090 provides a general description. This view is also supported by observation of Hon ble Apex Court in case of COMMNR. OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI VERSUS M/S. PFIZER LTD. 2015 (12) TMI 1150 - SUPREME COURT wherein Hon ble Court has observed 'in the present case, imported goods Virginiamycin is a well defined chemical of 100% purity with anti bacterial properties included specifically under Chapter 29 by virtue of Chapter Note 1(a).' - The ratio of above decision is equally applicable to instant case. Deliberate attempt to misclassify or not - HELD THAT - In the instant case appellants were earlier classifying the goods under chapter heading 2835. The heading is very specific leaving no room for doubt. The appellants made a claim that fluorine left in biofos MCP also known as deflorinated phosphate is intentional. The said claim has not been substantiated by any literature or by product safety data sheet. In these circumstances, there was a deliberate attempt to misclassify the goods to avail a lower duty rate. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of the imported product "Biofos Mono Calcium Phosphate (BMP)".
2. Applicability of Chapter 28 vs. Chapter 23 for classification.
3. Deliberate attempt to misclassify the product for lower duty rates.

Summary:

1. Classification of the Imported Product:
The appellant, Mossaic India Private Limited, imported "Biofos Mono Calcium Phosphate (BMP)" and classified it under CTH 2309 9090, claiming it as animal feed. The revenue reclassified it under CTH 2835 2610, arguing that the product is "Mono Calcium Phosphate" with some impurities, specifically fluorine content ranging from 0.16% to 0.19%.

2. Applicability of Chapter 28 vs. Chapter 23:
The appellant argued that the product should be classified under Chapter 23 as it is used for animal feed and the fluorine content is deliberately left for nutritional purposes. However, the revenue contended that the product falls under Chapter 28 as it is a chemically defined compound with impurities. The Tribunal noted that the product predominantly consists of Mono Calcium Phosphate Monohydrate, which is specifically covered under subheading 2835 2610. The Tribunal referred to Rule 3(a) of the General Rules of Interpretation, which states that the most specific description shall be preferred to a general description, thus favoring classification under Chapter 28.

3. Deliberate Attempt to Misclassify:
The Tribunal found no merit in the appellant's argument that fluorine was deliberately left in the product for animal feed purposes, as the safety data sheet did not list fluorine as a component. The Tribunal concluded that there was a deliberate attempt to misclassify the product to avail a lower duty rate, as the appellant had previously classified the product under Chapter 28.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the revenue's classification of the product under CTH 2835 2610 and dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's arguments. The Tribunal also noted that there was a deliberate attempt to misclassify the product to benefit from a lower duty rate.