2023 (4) TMI 790 - HC - Customs

Court directs goods to be classified as Eucalyptus Oil, not Eucalyptol. Decision based on lab report.

Jindal Drugs Private Limited Versus The Union of India and others.

The court directed the Respondents to treat the imported goods as Eucalyptus Oil instead of Eucalyptol, based on a laboratory report confirming the nature ... Provisional release of goods - Eucalyptol or Eucalyptus Oil - illegal seizure of goods - HELD THAT:- Since the reports of the laboratory received by the Respondents themselves indicate that it is Eucalyptus Oil, the Respondents are directed to take necessary action on the basis that the goods of the subject consignment are Eucalyptus Oil as per law and as a consequence, the seizure memo will not survive. Writ petition stands disposed of. Issues involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the legality and validity of the seizure memos, the nature of the goods imported by the Petitioner (Eucalyptol or Eucalyptus Oil), and the duty payable on the goods.Legality and Validity of Seizure Memos:The Petitioner sought relief through a writ of certiorari to quash and set aside the Impugned seizure memos dated 09.02.2021, 16.04.2021, and 16.04.2021. The Respondents had taken action against the Petitioner based on the premise that the imported goods were Eucalyptol and not Eucalyptus Oil. The Respondents had sent a sample for testing to an accredited laboratory, which confirmed the sample as Eucalyptus Oil. The Respondents, upon receiving clarification from the laboratory, acknowledged that the goods were indeed Eucalyptus Oil. The Petitioner highlighted that duty payable on Eucalyptus Oil is higher than Eucalyptol, indicating no prejudice to the Revenue. Consequently, the court directed the Respondents to treat the consignment as Eucalyptus Oil, leading to the disposal of the writ petition.Nature of Goods Imported:The key issue revolved around whether the goods imported by the Petitioner were Eucalyptol or Eucalyptus Oil. The Respondents initially believed the goods to be Eucalyptol, prompting the seizure. However, after laboratory testing, it was confirmed that the goods were Eucalyptus Oil. The Petitioner's counsel pointed out the duty discrepancy between the two products, emphasizing that the Revenue would not suffer any loss due to the nature of the imported goods. The court's decision was based on the laboratory report, directing the Respondents to treat the goods as Eucalyptus Oil, leading to the disposal of the petition.Duty Payable on Goods:The Petitioner's counsel highlighted that duty payable on Eucalyptus Oil is higher than Eucalyptol, ensuring that the Revenue would not be prejudiced by the nature of the imported goods. This aspect played a crucial role in the court's decision to direct the Respondents to consider the goods as Eucalyptus Oil and subsequently dispose of the writ petition.