2023 (3) TMI 751 - AT - Customs

Classification of goods - import of two seed processing lines for seed processing plant, each with an intake capacity of 10 tons per hour vide two Bills of Entry, among the Bills of Entry, the second Bill of Entry was for partial shipment / part delivery - respondent classified the goods under CTH 8437 as applicable to seed processing machine - adjudicating authority observed that the respondent has not complied with the procedure under Public Notice No.91/87 as applicable for such partial shipment - HELD THAT - The department has denied the classification adopted by the respondent (CTH 8437), as rightly discussed by the Commissioner (Appeals), it is not stated either in the show cause notice or in the Order-in-Original as to what would be the correct classification if the goods are not to be classified under CTH 8437. The demand has been raised by denying the classification to under CTH 8437. The Commissioner (Appeals) has analyzed the said issue and held that Only, when the goods, which were other than the complete machinery, imported separately without accompanying the main machinery, there can be a doubt that it can be put to more than one use and cannot be considered to be classified under CTH 8437 and should be classified under the respective heading of its individual description, material of make etc. Last but not the least, the whole consignment imported vide two bills of entry put together formed two processing lines for processing seed can be confirmed from the jurisdictional Central Excise authorities. The other allegation raised by the department is that the respondent has not followed the procedure laid down in Public Notice No.91/87. The said issue has also been analyzed by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that Probably for the reason that the consignment might have been received under two IGM numbers, the appellant filed two bills of entry for clearing the same. Further, that may be the probable reason, the appellant might have not followed the procedure laid down under PN No.91/87 as the consignment was cleared together though vide two bills of entry. There is a valid point in the contention of the appellant in this regard. It has to be seen that the proforma invoice shows the import of composite unit comprising of two seed processing lines. It is not in dispute that the order placed for supply would be complete only by including the goods imported vide both Bills of Entry. Merely because some parts were imported separately and cleared under a separate Bill of Entry, the department cannot contend that the goods cannot be classified under CTH 8437. There are no reasons to interfere with the decision arrived at by the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal filed by Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods under CTH 8437 for seed processing lines.
2. Compliance with the procedure under Public Notice No.91/87 for partial shipments.

Summary:
The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) who allowed the appeal filed by the respondent regarding the classification of imported goods under CTH 8437 for seed processing lines. The respondent imported two seed processing lines with part deliveries, which included items like elevators, conveyors, valves, etc. The Customs Receipt Audit observed that these items cannot be classified as seed processing machinery under CTH 8437. A demand notice was issued for duty payment, which the adjudicating authority confirmed. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, leading to the appeal by the Revenue.

Regarding the classification issue, the department argued that the goods were imported in separate consignments and the procedure under Public Notice No.91/87 for part shipments was not followed by the respondent. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the department failed to provide the correct classification of the goods and that the consignments formed two processing lines for seed processing. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted discrepancies in the classification and found that the entire consignment came together in one lot, dismissing the appeal by the Revenue.

On the issue of compliance with Public Notice No.91/87, it was argued that the substantive benefit should not be denied for procedural lapses. The Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed this aspect and found that the consignment was cleared together, even though two Bills of Entry were filed. The proforma invoice value matched the import invoices, indicating the import of a composite unit comprising two seed processing lines. The appeal filed by the Department was dismissed, upholding the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).