TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 796X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reover, accredited laboratory namely Geo Chem also vide report dated 06.10.2012 reported aromatic content is 35% and since 50% shown by the custom laboratory test report which does not mention method of testing sample, preference has to be given to the Geo Chem test report dated 06.10.2012 coupled with Supplier's quality certificate according to which the aromatic content being 33.08% - 35% is less than the non-aromatic content - the Rubber Processing Oil (RPO) is correctly classified under CTH 27101990. Country of Origin - HELD THAT:- The appellant had placed order with Oceanic Petroleum Source Pvt. Ltd, Singapore, who had shipped the goods from Malasiya. The Country of origin was shown in the invoice as UAE. The same was held as Malasiya by the lower authority, by relying on statement of Shri Hemant Shah, Director of appellant - it is found that, it is submitted that the appellant has not claimed any preferential rate of duty on the basis of declaration regarding country of origin. Penalty - HELD THAT:- Without going into the fact that, which is the correct county of origin, since the appellant has not claimed any concession on the basis of country of origin the iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 7638694 dated 11.08.2012 with Custom House, Kandla for clearance of 198 MT Rubber Processing Oil for assessment on first check basis. The appellant has classified goods under CTH 27101990. The appellant presented Quality Certificate No. TOP 2012/COQ-148 dated 28.08.2012 received from overseas supplier M/s. The Oceanic Petroleum Source Pvt. Ltd, Singapore showing among other parameters, Aromatic content as 33.8% measured by adopting ASTM D 2140 method. Geo Chem laboratory vide report dated 06.10.2012 as per which reported the aromatic content of 35%. The claim of the appellant is that aromatic content was less than the non-aromatic content. The goods were assessed provisionally and clearance was permitted. The test report dated 26.09.2012 issued by custom laboratory, Kandla in respect of sample drawn by customs reported aromatic content as above 50% i.e. more than non-aromatic constituents. On the basis of this test report, balance quantity of 63.600 MT were placed under seizure on 19.09.2012. On the basis of the customs laboratory report classification declared by the appellant was rejected and has ordered for final assessment by classifyin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cord, wherein he made detailed submission on facts and merit of the case. He also placed reliance on the following Judgments:- Sah Petroluems Ltd. V/s. Commr. Of Cus. (Import) JNCH, Nhava Shev -2017(358) ELT 483 (Tribunal - Mumbai) Agrawal Industrial Corporation Ltd. v/s. Commissioner Of Customs, Manglore, 2020 (373) ELT 280 ( Tri.- Bangalore) Surbit Impex Ltd.-2012(283) ELT 556 (Tri.- Mumbai) Mittal International -2018 (359) ELT 527 (Tri. -Del) Jay Kay Exports -2003 (161) ELT 443 (Tri. -Kol) 3. On the other hand Shri Ajay Kumar Samota, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered submissions made by both the sides, and perused the rerecords. In the present appeal, issue to be decided by us in the appeal filed by M/s. Amit Petrolubes Pvt Ltd are as under :- i. Classification of Rubber Processing Oil (RPO) ii. Country of origin of said goods iii. Enhancement of declared value twice. 4.1. As regards classification of Rubber Processing Oil (RPO), we find that was held by the revenue under CTH 27079900 treating the parameters of aromatic constituent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... county of origin, since the appellant has not claimed any concession on the basis of country of origin the issue is only of aromatic content and having no revenue implication. Therefore no consequential penalty is sustainable. The very identical issue has been considered by the Tribunal in Agrawal Industrial Corporation Ltd. v/s. Commissioner Of Customs, Manglore, 2020 (373) ELT 280 ( Tri.- Bangalore), whereby the Hon ble Tribunal has set aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed under Section 112(a) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that the country of origin was mis-declared in the bill of entry by taking note of the fact that the importer had not claimed any preferential rate of duty on this basis. 4.6. Considering the said decision of the Tribunal and fact of the present case, we hold that no penalty is sustained on this ground. 4.7. As regards the 3rd issue i.e. enhancement of the value of the imported goods twice, we find that once the value was enhanced from USD 500 PMT to USD 515 PMT , which was accepted by the appellant. However, the value was further enhanced to USD 585 only on the basis of one invoice bearing No. TOP SPL /CP/34 dated 09.07.2012 produ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
