9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration of acid value from “4 or more” to “between 4 & 10” would directly violate the language of the Notification. In the result, the importer in that case received the benefit of the Notification. Like the consignment of CPO imported by Cargill India Pvt. Ltd., the goods imported by the appellant also had acid value above 10. In both the cases, apparently, the goods satisfied the description of Sl. No. 30(II)(A) - stay granted. - C/2657/2012 - Misc. Order No. 25434/2013 - Dated:- 21-3-2013 - Shri P.G. Chacko and B.S.V. Murthy, JJ. Shri G.L. Rawal, Sr. Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri R.K. Singla, AR, for the Respondent. ORDER This application filed by the appellant seeks waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order, it appears that, on the basis of the Port Health Officer s Test Report (which showed the acid value above 10) and the C.B.E. C. Circular No. 40/2001-Cus., dated 13-7-2001 (which prescribed the maximum limit of acid value for edible grade CPO as 10), the learned Commissioner held that the goods imported by the appellant was non-edible grade crude CPO and not edible grade CPO. On this basis, it was found that the appellant had misdeclared the goods for the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. thereby rendering the goods liable to confiscation in terms of Section 111 of the Customs Act and rendering themselves liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Act. The benefit of the Notification was denied and duty demand ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ircular No. 40/2001-Cus., dated 13-7-2001. In the case of Cargill India Pvt. Ltd., the Hon ble High Court disapproved the Board s view by observing that the entry in the Notification should not be construed by taking aid of the provisions of Food Adulteration Rules and that the alteration of acid value from 4 or more to between 4 10 would directly violate the language of the Notification. In the result, the importer in that case received the benefit of the Notification. Like the consignment of CPO imported by Cargill India Pvt. Ltd., the goods imported by the appellant also had acid value above 10. In both the cases, apparently, the goods satisfied the description of Sl. No. 30(II)(A) ibid. The case law cited by the learned counsel ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
