Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2020 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (8) TMI 615 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - Calcite Sand (Calcite Powder) - classifiable under CT 2503 9030 as claimed by the Appellant or required to be classified under CTH 2836 5000 as confirmed vide the impugned order? - HELD THAT:- While in general, it is true that test report of CRCL cannot be brushed aside lightly, however, when CBEC itself categorically admits that for calcite powder, their Labs were not equipped to test the same till 2019, as evident from Circular No.43/2017-Cus dt.16.11.17 as also Circular No.15/2019-Cus dt.7.6.19, the Kandla Customs Chemical Lab reports as relied upon in the impugned order have to be discarded. The present case is identical to that in the case of C.C. & C.E. & S.T. -NOIDA VERSUS MANIKYA CREATIONS PVT. LTD. [2018 (7) TMI 1227 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] and M/S PAVAS POLYCHEM PVT. LTD., SHRI PAWAN KHATRI, DIRECTOR VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANPUR [2018 (2) TMI 1573 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD]. It therefore must be held that in absence of any independent cogent evidence to reject the classification under CTH 2503 9030 as claimed by the Appellant, the claim of the revenue to classify the very goods under CTH 2836 5000 has no support and must fail. Since the test reports cannot be relied upon in light of the categorical admission in Circular No.43/2017-Cus dt.16.11.17 regarding lack of infrastructure in Customs Labs to test calcite powder, it is not deemed necessary to examine whether the sampling was properly done as per applicable BIS including Clause 4.1- APPEDIX B OFIS : 918 : 1985 or otherwise. There is no option but to go by the technical data sheet/description provided by overseas supplier for the products in question. Nowhere the suppliers refer to the product to be of “Precipitated” form at all. In fact, the presence of other minerals, the Oil Absorption Ratio shown in the technical data sheet otherwise show that the product in question is not Precipitated and hence, the classification sought for by the Appellant under CTH 2503 9030 therefore has to be upheld - the differential duty demand, interest, fine and penal action is not sustainable - Appeal allowed.
|