9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Customs Notification No. 125/86 for re-assessment of imported product "Lupulin Pharma Grade" as aseptic packaging material. Detailed Analysis: The appeal challenged the Order-in-Appeal upholding the rejection of re-assessment claims for "Lupulin Pharma Grade" (LPG) under Customs Notification No. 125/86. The dispute arose as Customs authorities denied benefits under the notification, claiming the product did not qualify as aseptic packaging material. The Assistant Collector and Collector (Appeals) rejected the claims, stating the product was raw material, not packaging material, and lacked aseptic qualities. The Collector equated packaging material with bags, requiring immediate use for packaging, which the product did not meet. Additionally, aseptic packaging material was deemed to refer to Tetra packs specifically. The appellants contended that the product was of Pharma Grade, suitable for aseptic injection bottles, supported by certificates confirming compliance with international standards. They argued that packaging material need not be ready-to-use but could serve as raw material for containers. Reference was made to technical papers showing similarities between aseptic packaging and Tetra packs, suggesting the product should qualify under the notification. The Department maintained a strict interpretation of the notification, asserting the product was raw material for aseptic packaging, not packaging material upon import. They argued that the product lacked aseptic quality until processed and did not align with recognized pharmacopoeias. The Superintendent's certificates on product utilization were deemed irrelevant to the aseptic packaging material classification. Upon review, the Tribunal found the imported product was used in aseptic packaging machinery for pharmaceuticals, forming hollow bodies filled with drugs under sterile conditions. The product met Pharma Grade standards and had aseptic qualities essential for pharmaceutical packaging, as evidenced by certificates and technical literature. The Tribunal rejected the Collector's narrow interpretation, emphasizing the practicality of the notification to include aseptic packaging material. Construing the notification to align with the product's intended use in aseptic packaging, the Tribunal overturned the previous decision, directing the Assistant Collector to grant refunds based on the imported material's aseptic packaging application. In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision favored a broad interpretation of Customs Notification No. 125/86, recognizing the imported product as aseptic packaging material for pharmaceuticals, contrary to the Collector's restrictive view. The ruling prioritized the product's intended use and compliance with Pharma Grade standards, ensuring a practical application of the notification in facilitating refunds for aseptic packaging material.
|
