2010 (12) TMI 24 - SC - Customs

Classification - to whether cargo imported is classifiable as non-edible Industrial Grade Crude Palm Stearin falling under Ch. Sub Heading No. 15 11 90 90 or as RBD Palm Stearin falling under Tariff Item No. 38 23 11 12 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Held that - the import of the CRCL opinion and the CBEC Circular needs to be understood in proper perspective. The mere fact that the CRCL opinion and the CBEC Circular (No. 81/2002 - dated 03.12.2002) affirm the chemical composition of palm stearin cannot make a case for its classification under Ch. Sub Heading No. 15 11 90 90 - The essential conclusion to be drawn from these two reference documents is that palm stearin, which is obtained from the fractionation of palm oil, is comprised mainly of triglycerides of fatty acids. The question then arises as to whether it would be appropriate to categorize the triglycerides present in the oil, viz. Palm Stearin, under Chapter 15, while bracketing the free carboxylic acids derived during the refining process under Chapter 38 , the subject matter in question is specifically identified in Ch. Sub Heading No. 38 23 11 as Palm Stearin , and further differentiated as Crude and RBD in Sub Heading Nos. 38 23 11 11 and 38 23 11 12 respectively The issue of the essential character of the subject matter in question may be resorted to only if identification under Rule 3(a) is impossible - the CBEC Circular needs to be thus harmonized with the Eight-digit First Schedule introduced vide the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Ordinance, 2003. As mentioned before, the Circular had been issued prior to the coming into force of the amended Tariff Schedule and consequently, did not have the latter as its reference point the interpretive powers of this Court are significantly curtailed by the presence of a specific enumeration in Chapter 38 of the Tariff Schedule. This Court, while deciding an issue of classification, can only adjudicate along the lines of settled norms and precedents drawn from statutory interpretation and judicial precedents

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported cargo under Tariff Items of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
2. Determination of whether the imported goods are "Non-edible Industrial Grade Crude Palm Stearin" or "RBD Palm Stearin."
3. Applicability and interpretation of the CBEC Circular dated 03.12.2002.
4. Relevance of the Eight-digit First Schedule introduced by the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Ordinance, 2003.
5. Burden of proof for classification under specific tariff headings.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Cargo:
The primary issue was whether the imported cargo should be classified under Chapter Sub Heading No. 1511 90 90 as "Non-edible Industrial Grade Crude Palm Stearin" or under Tariff Item No. 3823 11 12 as "RBD Palm Stearin." The respondent declared the goods as industrial grade Crude Palm Stearin, while the appellant classified them as RBD Palm Stearin.

2. Determination of the Nature of Goods:
The Chemical Examiner reported that the goods were RBD Palm Stearin with an admixture of Palm Fatty Acid Distillate (PFAD) and not crude palm stearin as declared by the importer. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs finalized the Bills of Entry accordingly and demanded differential duty. The CESTAT, however, ruled in favor of the respondent, stating that the Chemical Examiner only ascertained the free fatty acids and not the triglycerides, which are crucial for classification under Chapter 15.

3. Applicability and Interpretation of CBEC Circular:
The CBEC Circular dated 03.12.2002 distinguished between triglycerides of fatty acids (classifiable under Chapter 15) and free fatty acids (classifiable under Chapter 38). The CESTAT relied on this circular and the opinion of the Customs and Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL) to conclude that the goods should be classified under Chapter 15. However, the Supreme Court held that the Circular must be harmonized with the Eight-digit First Schedule introduced later, which clearly identified Palm Stearin under Chapter 38.

4. Relevance of the Eight-digit First Schedule:
The Eight-digit First Schedule, introduced by the Customs Tariff (Amendment) Ordinance, 2003, was deemed to have statutory force over the CBEC Circular. Since the goods were imported between August 2003 and November 2004, they should be classified under the Eight-digit Tariff Schedule. The Supreme Court emphasized that the specific enumeration in Chapter 38 should prevail over the general description in Chapter 15.

5. Burden of Proof for Classification:
The respondent argued that the onus to classify the product under a specific heading lies with the Department, citing the case of Hindustan Ferodo Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise. The Supreme Court, however, found that the Chemical Examiner's report and the Eight-digit Tariff Schedule provided sufficient grounds to classify the goods under Chapter 38. The Court also referred to the precedent set in Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that an article with a reasonable claim to be classified under an enumerated item should not be consigned to a residuary clause.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the goods in question should be classified under Chapter 38 of the Eight-digit Tariff Schedule. The Court set aside the order of the CESTAT and restored the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals), affirming the classification of the goods as RBD Palm Stearin under Tariff Item No. 3823 11 12. The appeals were allowed, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.