9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (3) TMI 648 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - Boronated Calcium Nitrate - to be classified under CTH 3102 60 00 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or not - concessional rate of 5% BCD under Sl. No. 225(I)(b) of Notification No. 50/2017 Cus - HELD THAT - There is no dispute as regards the fact that the impugned goods are fertilizers, it is the claim of the Appellant that the disputed goods are a water-soluble fertiliser whereas the Department has alleged that since Boronated Calcium Nitrate is a fortified fertilizer it cannot be treated as a water-soluble fertiliser and therefore not eligible for exemption under the terms of Sl. No. 225(I)(b) of Notification No. 50/2017 Cus. It is observed that clarity on the nature of product is important to decide the eligibility of the Appellant for exemption under Notification No. 50/2017 Cus. It is the Appellant s claim that the submissions made by the Appellant have not been considered by the Department nor have they received such reports that have been relied upon by the Department to derive the nature of the impugned goods in order to deny exemption to the Appellant. The submissions made by the Appellant need to be considered owing the technical composition of the goods, that the factual dimensions of the issue needs to be verified first in order to determine eligibility under Notification No. 50/2017 Cus. - the matter needs to be reconsidered - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
The issue in the present case is whether the Appellant is eligible to avail benefit under Sl. No. 225(I)(b) of Notification No. 50/2017 - Cus on import of goods declared as 'Boronated Calcium Nitrate' by classifying the same under CTH 3102 60 00. Summary: Issue 1: Applicability of concessional rate of 5% BCD under Notification No. 50/2017 - Cus The Appellant, engaged in manufacturing and sale of fertilisers, imported 'Boronated Calcium Nitrate' and claimed benefit of concessional rate of 5% BCD under Sl. No. 225(I)(b) of Notification No. 50/2017 - Cus. The Department denied the exemption, stating that the impugned goods were different from 'Calcium Nitrate' and not eligible for the said concession. The Appellant challenged this decision. Issue 2: Violation of principles of natural justice The Appellant argued that the impugned order did not consider their submissions and relied heavily on test results not provided to them during the proceedings. This was viewed as a violation of principles of natural justice. The Appellant cited various cases in support of their argument. Issue 3: Nature of the disputed goods The dispute centered around whether the Boronated Calcium Nitrate imported by the Appellant should be considered a water-soluble fertiliser, making it eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 50/2017 - Cus. The Department contended that since it was a fortified fertiliser, it did not qualify as a water-soluble fertiliser. The Tribunal noted the importance of determining the nature of the product to decide the Appellant's eligibility for the exemption. In the judgment, the Tribunal observed that there was a lack of clarity on the nature of the disputed goods, crucial for determining the Appellant's eligibility for the exemption. The submissions made by the Appellant were not adequately considered, and the technical composition of the goods needed verification. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority for reconsideration.
|
