2025 (2) TMI 435 - HC - Customs

Partial exemption from customs duty for the import of Lactulose under Sr. No. 166 (A) of N/N. 50/2017 - whether imported goods are Bulk Drugs and should be classified under Sr. No. 166 (B)? - HELD THAT - When one examines Sr. No. 166 of the 2017 Notification it is found that the standard rate of duty is the same whether the Lactulose imported by the Petitioner falls within Sr. No. 166 (A) or under Sr. No. 166 (B). The only difference between the two is that if they fall within Sr. No. 166 (B) the Petitioner has to comply with the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty or for Specified End Use) Rules 2022. If those Rules are not complied with the Petitioner would be liable for action. At this stage and keeping all issues open the Lactulose imported by the Petitioner can be released by allowing them the partial exemption as contemplated under Sr. No. 166 (A) of the 2017 Notification subject to them furnishing a bond to the Customs Department in the format asked for by them. Thereafter the Department is free to issue a Show Cause Notice if it so chooses and take it to its logical conclusion. It is not opined whether the Lactulose imported by the Petitioner can be classified under Sr. No. 166 (A) or 166 (B) of the 2017 Notification. Conclusion - The Customs Department are directed to assess the Bills of Entry with the benefit of partial exemption under Sr. No. 166 (A) of the 2017 Notification subject to the Petitioner furnishing a bond. Petition disposed off.

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal issue in this case revolves around whether the Petitioner is entitled to claim a partial exemption from customs duty for the import of Lactulose under Sr. No. 166 (A) of Notification No. 50/2017, given that the Customs Department contends that the imported goods are "Bulk Drugs" and should be classified under Sr. No. 166 (B). The case also questions the procedural fairness in withholding the clearance of goods without issuing a Show Cause Notice.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The case primarily involves the interpretation of customs notifications, specifically Notification No. 50/2017 and Notification No. 12/2012, which provide for partial exemptions from customs duty. The legal framework also involves the Customs Tariffs Act, 1975, and the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty or for Specified End Use) Rules, 2022.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court examined the historical context of the notifications and the classification of Lactulose under the relevant tariff headings. The Court noted that the Petitioner had previously received favorable orders allowing the classification of Lactulose under Sr. No. 166 (A), and these had attained finality. The Court recognized that the standard rate of duty was the same under both Sr. No. 166 (A) and 166 (B), with the primary difference being the compliance with certain procedural rules under Sr. No. 166 (B).

Key evidence and findings: The Court considered past adjudications where the Commissioner of Customs had accepted the classification of Lactulose under Sr. No. 147 (A) of the 2012 Notification. The Court also noted that the Customs Department had previously reassessed and allowed partial exemption for similar imports by the Petitioner.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the legal framework to the facts by comparing the provisions of the 2012 and 2017 Notifications. It found that the conditions for exemption under the two notifications were substantially similar, thereby supporting the Petitioner's claim for exemption under the current notification.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Department argued that Lactulose should be classified under Sr. No. 166 (B) due to its nature as a "Bulk Drug." The Court, however, focused on the procedural fairness and the lack of a Show Cause Notice, allowing the goods to be cleared upon the furnishing of a bond, while leaving the classification issue open for future adjudication.

Conclusions: The Court concluded that, given past favorable decisions and the procedural unfairness of withholding goods without a Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner should be allowed to clear the goods under Sr. No. 166 (A) upon furnishing a bond.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: The Court stated, "In these circumstances, we are of the view that at this stage, and keeping all issues open, the Lactulose imported by the Petitioner can be released by allowing them the partial exemption as contemplated under Sr. No. 166 (A) of the 2017 Notification subject to them furnishing a bond to the Customs Department in the format asked for by them."

Core principles established: The judgment emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness in customs assessments and the necessity of issuing a Show Cause Notice before withholding goods. It also highlights that past favorable adjudications should be considered in current assessments.

Final determinations on each issue: The Court allowed the Petition, directing the Customs Department to assess the Bills of Entry with the benefit of partial exemption under Sr. No. 166 (A) of the 2017 Notification, subject to the Petitioner furnishing a bond. The Court left open the possibility for the Department to issue a Show Cause Notice for future adjudication of the classification issue.

← Previous Next →