2019 (2) TMI 147 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Raw Jute cutting grade imported by the appellant from Bangladesh through LCS Petrapole - whether classified under under Tariff Heading 53039010 or under Tariff subheading 530310.10 of CTA 75? - benefit of N/N. 21/02-Cus dated 01.03.2002 read with SAPTA N/N. 105/99 Cus dated 08.10.2005. Held that - The present issue is no more res-integra in view of the order passed by this Tribunal in the case of Naffar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. 2014 (8) TMI 282 - CESTAT KOLKATA , where it was held that Goods imported by the Appellant, be considered as raw jute of cutting grade, therefore the benefit of the said Notification automatically flows as it continued to be applicable to raw jute only. The appellant has appropriately classified the imported goods i.e. raw jute cutting grade under Tariff Heading 53039010 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and has rightly claimed the benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus dt.01.03.2002 and N/N. 105/99-Cus dt.10.05.1999 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported raw jute cutting.
2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification Nos. 21/2002-Cus and 105/99-Cus.
3. Appropriateness of the Commissioner (Appeals) remanding the matter for re-verification.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Raw Jute Cutting:
The primary issue revolved around the correct classification of raw jute cutting imported by the appellant from Bangladesh. The appellant classified the goods under Tariff subheading 530310.10 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, claiming it as raw jute, which attracted a 5% duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 and a 50% concession under Notification No. 105/99-Cus dated 10.08.1999. However, the Revenue contended that the goods should be classified under subheading 5303.90.10 as jute cutting, which does not qualify for the said exemptions.

The Tribunal referenced the case of Naffar Chandra Jute Mills Ltd. vs. CC (Preventive), Kolkata, which had settled the classification issue in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal concluded that the raw jute cutting should be classified under subheading 5303.10.10, not 5303.90.10, thereby supporting the appellant’s claim.

2. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification Nos. 21/2002-Cus and 105/99-Cus:
The appellant argued that their classification under subheading 5303.10.10 entitled them to the benefits under Notification Nos. 21/2002-Cus and 105/99-Cus. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the goods imported were raw jute of cutting grade, which falls under the specified subheading and qualifies for the exemptions. The Tribunal emphasized that the legislative history and the practice of assessment under the old tariff entry supported the appellant’s classification and the associated duty benefits.

3. Appropriateness of the Commissioner (Appeals) Remanding the Matter for Re-verification:
The Commissioner (Appeals) had remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for re-verification of the assessable value and the benefit of Notification No. 105/99-Cus. The appellant contended that this remand was unwarranted since the adjudicating authority had already decided these issues in their favor, and there was no challenge to this decision by either party. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the remand was unnecessary and legally unsound.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the appellant had correctly classified the imported goods under Tariff Heading 5303.10.10 and was rightly entitled to the benefits under Notification Nos. 21/2002-Cus and 105/99-Cus. Consequently, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellants. The impugned orders by the Commissioner (Appeals) were set aside.

Pronouncement:
The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 24.09.2018.