Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2007 (4) TMI 22

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gnments. The Customs Tariff classification claimed was Entry No. 1211.90, a sub-heading under Heading No. 12.11, which reads as under "12.11 Plants and parts of plants (including seeds and fruits) of a kind used primarily in perfumery, in pharmacy or for insecticidal, fungicidal or similar purpose, fresh or dried, whether or not cut, crushed or powdered." 2. The appellant also produced invoice describing the consignments as Lovage from M/s. Mustafa Enterprises, Karachi. Since the import of Lovage from SAARC countries was exempt from import licencing, the appellant produced 'SAARC Preferential Trading Arrangement (Sapta) certificate' dated 16th April 1999 from the Export Promotion Bureau, Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... department's view is that they are separate items. In this regard, I agree with the opinion of the department that these two items are separate items and merits classification under the headings indicated by the department. Since the ITC (HS) Classification categorically classifies Ajwain seeds under CTH 0910.09 and Lovage under 1211.90, the same would merit classification in the above headings. Since the comparison of samples of identical goods indicated it to be Ajwain seeds. I agree with the order of the lower authority to classify the same under CTH 0910.09. Regarding value, it is seen that the department has compared the impugned goods with contemporaneous imports which shows the unit price as US$ 545 PMT. While the Appellant is contes .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... documents, the sale price should have been accepted. The counsel would also point out that in regard to valuation also, the Custom authorities have been inconsistent. Reliance in this connection is placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of J.K. Imports v. CC, Mumbai - [2004 (173) E.L.T. 372 (1) = 2004 (116) ECR 476 (Tri. - Delhi)] wherein the Tribunal accepted assessment at the transaction value upon noting that Lovage consignments were being cleared at the same time at transaction values which were in the range 400-415 US $ PMT. He would also point out that in the case of J.K. Imports the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that Lovage and Ajwain are the same. 9. The ld. SDR would point out that the original authority had com p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (200) E.L.T. 516 (S.C.) = 2006 (76) RLT 6 (SC)] in support of his contention that a finding of fact recorded by the assessing authority and not challenged in the first appeal, cannot be interfered with at the appellate stage in the Tribunal. 13. The record shows that classification of the consignments was changed based on a market enquiry. However, that market enquiry is not avail able with the Custom authorities for being produced despite repeated adjournments. The appellant would point out that copy of the market enquiry was not supplied to them also. Therefore, they are also not in a position to produce the same. The original authority's order speaks of samples being seen but those samples are not available samples being seen but tho .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s. We may read Para 7 of that order :- "The contention of the Revenue is that Lovage and Ajwain seeds are both different and distinct commodity. The appellant imported Ajwain seed, which is restricted item, therefore, the impugned order is rightly passed. In respect of valuation the contention is that the adjudicating authority relied the contemporaneous import of the same goods, which are of the higher value. We find that Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order gave a categorial finding that Lovage and Ajwain are the same. This finding is not challenged by the Revenue. Therefore, now the Revenue can not argue that Lovage and Ajwain are two different commodities. We find that Lovage is not restricted item in case it is imported from .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates