1987 (7) TMI 249 - AT - Customs

Tribunal extends duty concession to baby food as milk substitute under Customs Notifications

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS Versus N. KUMAR

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MADRAS Versus N. KUMAR - 1987 (31) E.L.T. 806 (Tribunal) Issues:1. Maintainability of the appeals due to lack of authorization by Collector.2. Interpretation of Customs Notifications No. 142 and 200 regarding exemption of milk foods.3. Classification of 'Prosobee' baby food as milk food.4. Relevance of previous Tribunal decisions and legal sources in interpreting the term 'milk food.'Analysis:1. The main issue in this case was the maintainability of the appeals filed by the Collector of Customs. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the lack of authorization by the Collector for the Assistant Collector to file the appeals. The Tribunal examined the Collector's file and found substantial compliance with the provisions of the Customs Act, allowing both parties to present arguments on the merits of the dispute.2. The dispute revolved around the interpretation of Customs Notifications No. 142 and 200, which exempt milk foods for infants and invalids from customs duty. The notifications covered milk foods falling within Chapter 21 of the Customs Tariff Act. The Appellate Collector extended the benefit of these notifications to the appellants, including the benefit of Central Excise Notification No. 17/70.3. The classification of 'Prosobee' baby food as milk food was contested. The Assistant Collector initially rejected the claim, stating that the product, being milk-free, did not qualify as milk food under the notifications. However, the Appellate Collector interpreted the term 'milk' broadly to include sources like soybean milk, extending the duty concession to the product as a substitute for milk food.4. The Tribunal considered previous decisions and legal sources in interpreting the term 'milk food.' It noted that the term had not been defined in Excise or Customs Law. References were made to various dictionaries and materials explaining milk-like juices from plant sources and the composition of soy milk. The Tribunal concluded that the term 'milk' for the purpose of the tariff was not limited to mammalian milk but also included milk-like juices from vegetable sources, supporting the Appellate Collector's decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Appellate Collector's order, affirming the extension of duty concession to the product in question as a substitute for milk food. The appeals by the Collector of Customs were dismissed, emphasizing the broad interpretation of the term 'milk food' under the relevant customs notifications.