INDIA ROSIN INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Writ Petition is filed against the impugned Order-in- Original No.546/03 dated 06.05.2003 passed by the 2nd Respondent , finalising the provisional assessment made and by levying an Additional Duty of Customs @16%.

(2.) Customs Tariff Heading 1301.90 of the Central Excise Traiff Act, 1975 provides for levy of Customs Duty @ 16% for the present subject product namely 'Oleo Pine Resin'. The second respondent herein had issued a show cause notice dated 25.03.2003, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why Custom Duty of 16 % should not be levied and the provisional assessment finalised. The Writ petitioner had given a reply dated 29.04.2003 and not being satisfied with the explanation given, the impugned Order-in-Original came to be passed by the second respondent on 06.05.2003.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the earlier consignment, when a similar objection was raised by the respondent herein demanding Customs Duty for the product manufactured through manual process, the same came to be challenged before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal), Chennai. By an order inAppeal dated 12.06.1998, it was held that pine resin, being a natural product, cannot be considered to be manufactured with the help of power and therefore held that the classification of the product would fall under sub headings No.1301.90 of the CET Act and had 'Nil' rate of duty and thereby setting aside the assessment and levy of additional customs duty. When the order inappeal came to be challenged before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal by an order dated 01.02.1999, the Revenue Appeal came to be rejected, by observing that the Commissioner has considered the certificates produced by the suppliers, which had been ignored by the Assistant Commissioner. It was further held that the item had been manufactured without use of power and therefore the classification of the product arrived at 1301.90 by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be faulted and was sufficient for exemption of payment of Customs Duty. The learned counsel further submitted that subsequently, the department had issued a circular dated 31.03.2004, whereby, it has been held that a declaration and certificate from the Chamber of Commerce or the Government agency of the supplying country to the effect that the product has been produced/extracted without use of power, can be accepted.