Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether de-oiled rice bran extraction, niger seed extraction, tapioca chips extraction and sesame seed extraction are classifiable as animal feed under Tariff Heading No. 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for levy of export duty.
Analysis: The term "animal feed" was not defined in the tariff, so the ordinary meaning and common understanding of the expression had to govern. The materials on record and the relevant standard recognised a distinction between feeding stuffs or ingredients and animal feed itself. Products which are only components or supplements do not become animal feed merely because they may ultimately be used in feed mixtures. The earlier decision dealing with animal feed supplements was distinguishable on its facts and did not assist the present claim.
Conclusion: The goods in question were only ingredients and not animal feed; they did not fall within Heading 21 and were not liable to export duty on that basis.
Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the Tribunal's view that the exported goods were outside the scope of the relevant animal feed heading was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff entry uses the expression "animal feed" without definition, goods that are merely ingredients, components, or supplements are not classifiable as animal feed unless the tariff context indicates that the composite product itself is covered.