Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2023 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (7) TMI 447 - AT - CustomsClassification of imported goods - coal of Indonesian origin - to be classified under tariff item 2701 1920 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or not - benefit of notification no. 12/2012-Cus dated 17th March 2012 - contention of Learned Authorized Representative is that the claim of precedence for ‘steam coal’ at the tariff item level over ‘bituminous coal’ at the sub-heading level, though dressed up as tariff item, is not consistent with the General Rules for Interpretation of the Import Tariff in Customs Tariff Act, 1975. HELD THAT:- Coal is a bounty of Nature that occurs as localised concentrations and, by its very remoteness from places of deployment, implies voluminouos shipments with appropriate commercial stake. Coal draws worth from its combustion capacity – by direct application of heat in manufacturing process or indirectly by generation of steam used for deriving energy of one sort or another. The heating capacity is proportional to carbon content which, being a natural element, not only varies from source to source but is also contingent upon presence of retarding extraneous matter - Anthracite coal is considered superior and relatively scarce; its characteristic of very high carbon permits deployment at the high end of the spectrum in sophisticated equipment. Bituminous coal is most widespread and is primarily used in heating for generation of thermal power; the oozing of the tarry substance, from which the name is derived, renders such coal unsuitable in direct application that would clog equipment. The sub-headings in chapter 27 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 adopted definitions consistent with the standards developed, and accepted, over the long period of increasing dependence on coal for industry, transportation and energy. The evaluation of ‘fixed carbon’, at or more than 86% (on dry, mineral matter free basis) with ‘volatile matter’ constituting the remaining 14% or less, as the determinant of ‘anthracite’ bears the insignificance of ‘heating value’ insofar as coal of this rank is concerned - The adjudicating authority has placed too much premium on the said expressions in the sub-heading notes without considering relevance to the ‘certificate of sampling and analysis (CoSA)’ or the significance of formula, and more especially, in conversion. Doubtlessly, the investigation, and use of the word advisedly as there has been no scrutiny of the tabulated information by the adjudicating authority who has merely approved the arrangement in Annexure B to the show cause notice, are happy with their mathematical reformulation which carries that derived ‘gross calorific value (GCV)’ beyond the threshold to reaches of higher duty liability. There is no controversy for the ‘proximate analysis’, undertaken at load port and conforming to ASTM, indicated ‘gross calorific value (GCV)’ to be below the threshold for classification as ‘bituminous coal’ in chapter 27 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. However, the notation – ARB/ADB for ‘gross calorific value (GCV)’ and ADB for ‘inherent moisture’ and ‘volatile matter’ did. However, the adjudicating authority has not ventured to consider the ‘chicken and egg’ analysis of the method adopted for measuring ‘gross calorific value (GCV)’ of coal. That this is a ‘mathematical value’, expressed in per kilogram terms to a specific outcome, viz., the raising of temperature of a kilogram of water by one degree on the Celsius scale – a theoretically cumbersome and haphazard process save for the invention by Marcellin Berthelot, the founder of organic chemistry – in bomb calorimeter appears to have been ignored; that such determination from a sample of powder, bereft of moisture and mineral matter, needed adjustment only for the missing element in the qualification was also equally ignored in the eagerness to carry out algebraic permutation for arriving at the desired result to charge higher rate of duty. Several fatal errors have been committed in the impugned proceedings in consequence. There is, in addition, lack of comprehension about the conversion of ‘gross calorific value (GCV)’ in load port ‘certification of sampling and analysis (CoSA)’ – for being on ‘as received basis (ARB)’ – into ‘gross calorific value (GCV)’ – on ‘air dry basis (ARB)’ by application of factor that coal with inherent moisture bears to moisture free coal which should have sufficed to arrive at ‘gross calorific value (GCV)’ ‘on moist basis’; that, however, would not have suited the investigators for that proved to be below the threshold of ‘5833 kcal/kg’ in the sub-heading notes. Therefore, even going by their own calculation, the investigators carried out a superfluous exercise beyond ‘gross calorific value (GCV)’ on ‘air dry basis (ADB)’ to contrive a measure that has no rationale. Without ascertaining the method by which ‘gross calorific value (GCV)’ was determined for inclusion in the ‘certificate of sampling and analysis (CoSA)’ issued at load port and in the absence of any finding that this was not directly deduced from bomb calorimeter and as content of ‘moisture’, ‘ash’ ‘volatile matter’ and ‘fixed matter’ in coal sample will not, of itself, derive the heating capacity as ‘kcal/kg’, there is no reason to suppose that it was not ‘steam coal’ to be classified elsewhere - Consequently, the formula devised for reverse working from ‘moisture free mineral matter free’ basis ‘gross calorific value (GCV)’ for computation in terms of any one or other description in sub-heading notes in chapter 27 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is not required to be worked out sequentially as the table in Annexure B has done to obtain outcomes that are inexplicable, unfounded and lacking in rationale. It is, thus, clear that, on ‘as received basis (ARB)’ and ‘air dry basis (ADB)’, the ‘gross calorific value (GCV)’ – comprising both types of moisture and inherent moisture respectively – are below the threshold of ‘bituminous coal’ in all the samples. The attempt by the adjudicating authority to classify the impugned goods within the description ‘bituminous coal’, corresponding to tariff item 2701 1200 in the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, fails. The claim for classification as ‘steam coal’ corresponding to tariff item 2701 1920 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 remains undisturbed. Eligibility for benefit of notification no. 12/2012-Cus dated 17th March 2012 cannot be denied. The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
|