Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 101 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - plant extracts (bio fertilizer) - Whether the impugned goods are ‘plant extract’ classifiable Under CTH 13021990 or as ‘bio fertilizer’ under CTH31010099? - Held that:- The impugned product cannot be grouped under Chapter 31 due to the genesis of the product and characteristics. Moreover, the National and Regional Centre for Organic Farming have given a categorical report that the subject goods do not conform to any of the requirements of any biofertilizers listed under FCO. Therefore, the impugned products are not biofertilizers - the Commissioner has correctly held that when there is a legal definition available on the subject defining an item, no other definition can be adopted in this regard to the same. The appellants themselves have mentioned the product to have been extracted from different plants grown in China. This being the case, one should have no hesitation or doubt in categorizing the impugned product as ‘Extracts’ - As it is not denied that the impugned product is an extract of plants, it is correct to classify the same under Chapter 13 of CTH. Moreover, as the goods were certified not to be biofertilizers, the classification claimed by the appellants under Chapter 31 is squarely excluded. The impugned product is classifiable under CTH 13021990. Extended period of limitation - Held that:- Having assessed that Bill of Entry provisionally, it was open to the department to keep an alert in the system to interdict subsequent Bills of Entry. Having failed to do so, department cannot allege suppression on the part of the importer. Therefore, the demand needs to be restricted to the normal period. Whether the Ld. Commissioner erred in not imposing fine in lieu of confiscation and penalty? - Held that:- The goods in respect of Bill of Entry 740088 dt.6.1.2009 were seized and were provisionally released and therefore, in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Weston Components Ltd. vs. CC [2000 (1) TMI 45 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], the adjudicating authority should have imposed redemption fine. Appeal allowed in part.
|