TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal rejects Revenue's stay application on imported goods classification, upholds re-testing directive</h1> <h3>Pr. Commissioner of Customs, Noida Versus M/s Sachin Chemical Agency, Manikya Creations Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's stay application regarding the classification of imported goods as 'precipitated Calcium Carbonate' instead of ... Natural justice - request for re-testing of samples - Held that: - the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is a reasoned order and implementation of the said order will not cause any injustice to Revenue - stay applications rejected. Issues:1. Stay application filed by Revenue to suspend operation of Order-in-Appeal dated 08.03.2016.2. Challenge to classification of imported goods as 'precipitated Calcium Carbonate' instead of 'Natural Calcite Powder' or 'Chalk-Natural Calcium Carbonate.'3. Dispute over re-testing of samples by CRCL and direction to consider re-testing by Delhi Test House.4. Arguments on sustainability of impugned Order-in-Appeal and potential injustice to Revenue.Analysis:The issue at hand involves the Revenue's application for a stay on the operation of the Order-in-Appeal dated 08.03.2016, which classified imported goods as 'precipitated Calcium Carbonate' instead of the declared 'Natural Calcite Powder' or 'Chalk-Natural Calcium Carbonate.' The Revenue contended that the findings of the Order-in-Appeal are not sustainable as the CRCL had already tested the goods and provided its opinion. On the other hand, the respondent argued for re-testing of samples, citing a letter from CSIR stating the difficulty in distinguishing between different types of Calcium Carbonate through chemical methods. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed re-testing by Delhi Test House, considering the technical limitations of CRCL. The Revenue, aggrieved by this decision, filed a stay application.During the hearing, the Revenue reiterated the CRCL's opinion and argued against the sustainability of the Order-in-Appeal. In response, the appellant's counsel emphasized the reasoned nature of the Order-in-Appeal and presented a precedent where re-testing was allowed in a similar case. The Tribunal noted that the Order-in-Appeal was reasoned and that implementing it would not cause injustice to the Revenue. Referring to the precedent provided, the Tribunal rejected the Revenue's stay applications, thereby upholding the direction for re-testing by Delhi Test House.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision to reject the Revenue's stay applications was based on the reasoned nature of the Order-in-Appeal and the lack of potential injustice to the Revenue in implementing the re-testing directive. The judgment underscores the importance of thorough consideration of technical aspects in customs classification disputes and the need to ensure fair procedures in resolving such matters.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
