Prima facie tariff classification under Heading 3105 defeated Revenue's stay request for mono potassium phosphate imports.

A marginal 3-day delay in filing the Revenue's appeal was condoned because the explanation was found sufficient. On the stay issue, mono potassium phosphate was examined only prima facie for classification purposes: the chemical analysis report, treatment under the Fertiliser Control Order, the absence of departmental testing of the imported consignment, and the tariff scheme under Heading 3105 and Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 31 all weighed against stay. The Revenue therefore failed to establish a prima facie case, and the stay application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the delay of 3 days in filing the Revenue's appeal should be condoned. (ii) Whether the goods imported, being mono potassium phosphate, made out a prima facie case for grant of stay against the order classifying them under Heading 3105.

Issue (i): Whether the delay of 3 days in filing the Revenue's appeal should be condoned.

Analysis: The delay was marginal and the explanation offered by the appellant was accepted as sufficient.

Conclusion: The delay was condoned.

Issue (ii): Whether the goods imported, being mono potassium phosphate, made out a prima facie case for grant of stay against the order classifying them under Heading 3105.

Analysis: The goods were supported by a chemical analysis report and were also treated as fertiliser under the Fertiliser Control Order, subject to technical specifications. No sample from the imported consignment was tested by the department's laboratory, so no adverse inference could be drawn. On the description of Heading 3105, mineral or chemical fertilisers containing phosphorus and potassium were specifically covered by sub-heading 3105 60 00, and Chapter Note 6 to Chapter 31 supported classification under Heading 3105. The Tribunal recorded only a prima facie view for deciding the stay application.

Conclusion: The Revenue did not establish a prima facie case for stay, and the stay application was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The procedural relief sought by the Revenue failed, while the classification issue was considered only tentatively for the limited purpose of stay.

Ratio Decidendi: For deciding a stay application, a prima facie classification supported by the tariff heading, chapter note, and unrebutted material may justify refusal of stay, especially where no departmental test of the imported goods is conducted.

---