2025 (7) TMI 1470 - AT - Customs

Seeking release of seized imported goods - Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) sulphur content of the goods imported was more than 3.5% and hence the goods do not satisfy the IS 17049 - HELD THAT - DGFT issued the License to the Respondent allowing them to import 37, 777 M.T. of RPC. subject to fulfilment of condition as mentioned in IS 17049. They are the proper authority to clarify any issue related to such import as permitted in the license. In the present case we find that DGFT has clarified that the Respondent was entitled to use the RPC for CPC and percentage of sulphur content was not relatable to the respondent since it was used as feed stock converted to CPC. Accordingly on the basis of the clarification issued by DGFT the Respondent are eligible to import the said goods as permitted by DGFT and there is no merit in the appeal filed by the Revenue - Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

ISSUES:

Whether the import of Raw Petroleum Coke (RPC) with sulphur content exceeding 3.5% is permissible under the license issued by DGFT for manufacture of Calcined Petroleum Coke (CPC) used in anode making in aluminum industry.Whether the condition relating to sulphur content under IS 17049 applies to RPC at the point of import or only to the CPC product after calcination.Whether the Customs authorities were justified in seizing the imported RPC on the ground of violation of import policy despite the license issued by DGFT and clarifications given by DGFT and Ministry of Environment.Whether the appellate authorities erred in allowing the release of seized goods and dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The license issued by DGFT permitting import of RPC for manufacture of CPC for anode making in aluminum industry allows import of RPC irrespective of sulphur content, as the sulphur content condition under IS 17049 applies to the calcined product, not to the RPC at import stage.The description of goods in the license and policy conditions must be read in conjunction with the Supreme Court order and Expert Committee minutes, which clarify that RPC is imported as feedstock to be converted into CPC for anode making, and RPC itself is not directly used in anode making.The seizure of RPC by Customs authorities for alleged violation of import policy was not justified since the Respondent held a valid license issued by DGFT and had clarifications from DGFT and Ministry of Environment confirming entitlement to import and use RPC as feedstock for CPC production.The appeal filed by Revenue against the order allowing release of goods and dismissing Revenue's appeal was without merit and is accordingly dismissed.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the import policy as amended following the Supreme Court order, which allowed calciners to import RPC subject to conditions specified by the Expert Committee and DGFT licensing.The policy and license conditions were interpreted in light of the statutory framework governing import of petroleum coke and the technical standards under IS 17049, which relate to the calcined product (CPC) rather than raw material (RPC).Clarifications from DGFT and Ministry of Environment were accorded due weight as the competent authorities responsible for regulating import licenses and environmental standards respectively.No doctrinal shift or dissent was recorded; the judgment reaffirmed the principle that import licenses and policy conditions must be read in their full context including relevant Supreme Court directions and expert committee recommendations.