9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (8) TMI 860 - HC - CustomsClassification of imported goods - Vitamin Pre-mixes - classifiable under heading 29.36 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under 23.09? - HELD THAT - The impugned order dated 8th July 2022 is set aside and the matter remanded for de novo consideration. Respondent no. 6 shall pass a reasoned order dealing with all submissions of appellant on or before 15th October 2024. Before passing any order, he shall give a personal hearing to appellant, notice whereof shall be communicated atleast 5 working days in advance - After the personal hearing, should appellant wishes to file any written submissions recording what transpired during the course of personal hearing, same shall be filed within 3 working days of personal hearing and that shall also be dealt with in the final order. Appeal disposed off.
Issues:
Statutory appeal under Section 28KA of the Customs Act, 1962 challenging an order dated 8th July 2022 passed by respondent no. 6 regarding the classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Detailed Analysis: 1. Appellant's Business and Import: The appellant, a leading transnational company in the Indian Chemical Industry, imports Vitamin Pre-mixes for animal feed supplements. The products subject to the appeal were listed in the appeal memo. 2. Advance Ruling Application: The appellant had filed an application for Advance Ruling under Section 28H of the Act, seeking classification of the imported goods. The impugned order classified the goods under heading 29.36 of the Customs Tariff Act, contrary to the appellant's position under heading 23.09. 3. Quashing of the Impugned Order: The High Court, after perusing the impugned order, decided to quash it and remand the matter for de novo consideration due to various reasons highlighted in the judgment. 4. Lack of Disclosure and Communication: The Court noted that the impugned order lacked transparency as it did not disclose the information gathered or the sources used for decision-making. The appellant was not given an opportunity to respond to this undisclosed information. 5. Failure to Elaborate Differences: The Court found discrepancies in the impugned order's assertion that the product in question was different from a previous case. The Court emphasized that the respondent should have elaborated on the differences between the products to justify the classification. 6. Non-disclosure of Relevant Judgments: The respondent relied on a judgment without bringing it to the appellant's notice during the hearing. This lack of disclosure deprived the appellant of the opportunity to address or distinguish the judgment. 7. Failure to Address Appellant's Submissions: The Court criticized the respondent for not adequately addressing the submissions made by the appellant during the personal hearing. Merely stating that all materials were considered was deemed insufficient without providing reasons for disagreement. 8. Explanatory Notes to HSN: The Court acknowledged the reference to Explanatory Notes to the Harmonized System of Nomenclature (HSN) but noted that these were not adequately considered or discussed in the decision-making process. 9. Remand and Instructions: The High Court set aside the impugned order and directed respondent no. 6 to pass a reasoned order considering all appellant's submissions. A personal hearing was mandated, with a deadline for the new order and an opportunity for the appellant to file written submissions thereafter. 10. Final Disposition: The appeal was disposed of with the above instructions for a fresh consideration of the classification of the imported goods.
|
