9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No. 179/86 regarding the benefit of exemption for imported goods '3 Dimethyl Amine 1 Chloro Propane HCl'. 2. Whether the presence of 50% hydrochloric acid in the imported item affects its classification under the notification. 3. Consideration of technical evidence provided by the appellants in support of their claim. Analysis: Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 179/86 The appellants had imported '3 Dimethyl Amine 1 Chloro Propane HCl' seeking exemption under Notification No. 179/86. The Collector (Appeals) denied the benefit stating that the notification only covered '3 Dimethyl Amine 1 Chloro Propane' without reference to its hydrochloride form. The Collector emphasized that the chemical formulae of the two variations were distinct, and the notification should be strictly construed based on the express entries. The appellants argued that the stabilised form should also be covered under the notification to prevent redundancy. Issue 2: Presence of 50% Hydrochloric Acid The appellants contended that the presence of 50% hydrochloric acid was for stabilizing the unstable organic base, making it the same item eligible for exemption. They relied on expert certificates to support their claim. The Collector rejected the claim, emphasizing a literal interpretation of the notification and disregarding the stabilizing purpose of the hydrochloric acid. Issue 3: Consideration of Technical Evidence The appellants argued that the technical evidence, including certificates from experts, supported their claim that '3 Dimethyl Amine 1 Chloro Propane HCl 50% Acqueous solution' was the stabilised form of the item mentioned in the notification. The Collector's failure to refer the matter to a Chemical Examiner despite a remand was criticized. The certificates highlighted that the stabilised form was equivalent to the item listed in the notification. The Tribunal analyzed previous judgments, such as New Plastomers India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, to interpret the scope of exemption notifications. In cases like Bakelite Hylam Ltd. and Heli Plastics Ltd., the Tribunal allowed exemptions based on the classification and interpretation of relevant notifications, emphasizing the commercial understanding of the products. In conclusion, the Tribunal accepted the appellants' contentions, considering the technical evidence and expert opinions provided. The presence of 50% hydrochloric acid for stabilization did not alter the essential nature of the imported item, making it eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 179/86. The Tribunal granted the appeals with consequential relief, aligning with the interpretations of similar cases and the technical analysis presented by the appellants.
|
