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 Confirms EDTA FE as Micronutrient Fertilizer; Nitrogen Inclusion Valid</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai Versus SLV Fertichem</h3> The Tribunal upheld the classification of imported EDTA FE as Micronutrient Fertilizer under CTH 31059090, rejecting the Revenue's argument disputing the ... Classification of imported goods - EDTA FE - respondent considered the same as Micronutrient Fertilizer to be classified under CTH 31059090 whereas Revenue claimed that it should be more specifically brought under Chapter 29 as 'Organic Chemical' more specifically under Heading 292121 as 'Ethylenediamine and its salts' - Held that: - In the present case, the fertilizing element is contested to be not nitrogen and hence the classification as micronutrient was contested by the Revenue - As clarified by RFCL, micronutrients also fertilizers which are not getting the status of a fertilizer by the presence of Nitrogen / Phosphorous / Potash - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues:Classification of imported product as Micronutrient Fertilizer under CTH 31059090, dispute regarding the presence of Nitrogen as an essential component contributing to the fertilizing nature of the goods.Analysis:The judgment pertains to the classification of imported EDTA FE as Micronutrient Fertilizer under CTH 31059090, with a dispute arising over the presence of Nitrogen as a contributing factor to the fertilizing nature of the goods. The Revenue contested the classification, arguing that Nitrogen was not an essential component and should be classified under Chapter 29 as 'Organic Chemical.' The lower authorities had examined the issue extensively, with the original authority supporting the classification as Micronutrient Fertilizer. The Revenue's argument lacked evidence, such as test reports or expert opinions, to substantiate their claim. The Tribunal had previously upheld a similar classification in a related case involving zinc, manganese, and iron. The Regional Fertilizer Control Laboratory clarified that micronutrient fertilizers contain elements like zinc, iron, and manganese for plant growth, indicating that the presence of Nitrogen did not disqualify the product from being classified as a micronutrient fertilizer.The Revenue cited a Supreme Court decision in a different case related to plant growth regulators, but the Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the lower authorities' findings in the present case. The imported product had been tested for compounds and fell under the Fertilizer Control Order. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the classification of the product as Micronutrient Fertilizer under CTH 31059090.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
