2023 (7) TMI 1067 - AT - Customs

Classification of import goods - Un-Coated Calcite Powder or precipitated Calcium Carbonate? - to be classified under Tariff Heading No. 25309030 or under Tariff Heading No. 2836500? - HELD THAT - The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has held that I find that the said Appellants have not come up with any material contradicting two substantial evidences brought on records by the department viz. (i) relevant Panchnama during which it was prima-facie appeared that the goods under reference were Calcium Carbonate and not the declared goods and (ii) the report of the Chemical Examiner who categorically opined that the goods in question are Precipitated Calcium Carbonate. It is a matter of common knowledge that the word precipitated preceding to Calcium Carbonate itself indicates that the goods under reference are not obtained as natural resources and thus classifiable under Chapter 25 but it is a manufactured item, classifiable under Chapter 28. The order is well reasoned and is properly backed by opinion of chemical analyst. We therefore find no merits in the grounds taken by the appellant and find that the impugned order is sustainable. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
Classification of product "Un-Coated Calcite Powder" under Tariff Heading No. 25309030.

Classification Issue:
The issue in this case revolves around the classification of the product "Un-Coated Calcite Powder." The party claimed it falls under Tariff Heading No. 25309030, while the Department, based on a test report by the chemical analysis, classified it as precipitated Calcium Carbonate under Tariff Heading No. 2836500. The chemical examiner's report confirmed the product as precipitated Calcium Carbonate, leading to the Department's decision on classification. During the adjudication process, the importer waived the show cause notice and personal hearing, opting to pay penalties for the release of goods due to financial losses.

Reasoning of the Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner's reasoning highlighted that the evidence provided by the Department, including the Panchnama and the Chemical Examiner's report, supported the classification of the product as precipitated Calcium Carbonate under Chapter 28, not natural Calcium Carbonate under Chapter 25. The Commissioner emphasized that the word "precipitated" indicated a manufactured item, not a natural resource. The Commissioner also dismissed the appellant's argument for re-testing, stating that no contradicting evidence was presented. The valuation of the goods and the penalty imposed were also discussed, with the Commissioner finding no grounds for altering the lower adjudicating authority's decision.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal found the Commissioner's order well-reasoned and supported by the chemical analyst's opinion. The grounds presented by the appellant were deemed meritless, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The impugned order was upheld as sustainable based on the evidence and classification provided.