2016 (8) TMI 339 - AT - Customs

Concessional rate of duty - prawn feed - prawn imported in micro-encapsulated form - exemption claimed under notification no.21/2002 - (S.No.56)- vitamin pre-mixes - product to be in pellet form - Held that - A clear finding as to the form of import, whether in pellet form has to be recorded with supporting evidence. Vitamins, one or more of them, present in the prawn feed not exceeding the proportion will satisfy the condition of the notification or not - pleading of the appellant are to be dealt with for acceptance or rejection with reason - matter remanded - A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed at the earliest.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification No.21/2002 - (S.No.56) for concession on prawn feed import.
2. Determination of whether the imported product qualifies as prawn feed in pellet form.
3. Assessment of the proportion of vitamin pre-mixes in the imported prawn feed.
4. Adequacy of reasoning and findings in the original authority's decision.
5. Validity of denial of concessional rate of duty to the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the denial of concession on prawn feed import under Notification No.21/2002 - (S.No.56). The appellant imported prawn feed and claimed exemption based on specific conditions outlined in the notification.

2. The appellant contended that their imported prawn feed in micro-encapsulated form met the criteria of being in pellet form, ready to use, and containing vitamins within the prescribed limits as per SION norms. They argued that the original authority's denial of exemption was based on incomplete information and incorrect interpretation of the SION norms.

3. The dispute revolved around the presence of vitamin pre-mixes in the prawn feed and whether the proportion of vitamins exceeded the SION norms. The appellant asserted that their product complied with the prescribed limits, while the original authority's decision was based on the mandatory requirement of Vitamin C in vitamin pre-mixes.

4. The Tribunal noted that the original authority's decision lacked a comprehensive analysis and clear findings on crucial aspects such as the form of import (pellet or micro-encapsulated), the proportion of vitamins, and the adequacy of the appellant's pleadings. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a detailed and reasoned order supported by evidence.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the original authority for a fresh decision. The original authority was directed to provide the appellant with an opportunity to present their case adequately, address all relevant points raised by the appellant, and issue a well-reasoned order promptly.