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>Court Upholds Classification of Imported Goods; Defers to Customs Lab's Expertise on Technical Grade Urea Standards.</h1> <h3>R. Krishnaprasad, Proprietor of Karthika Traders Versus The Commissioner Of Customs, Cochin, The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Appg.) Cochin.</h3> The HC dismissed the writ petition seeking reclassification of imported goods as Technical Grade Urea under tariff item 31021090. The Court deferred to ... Maintainability of petition - Chemical Examiner’s report is correct or not - Classification of imported goods - Technical Grade Urea - to be classified under tariff item 31021090 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or not - Petitioner seeks to command the respondents to forthwith complete all procedures and formalities and clear the goods imported by the Bill of Entry in Ext. P4 as Technical Grade Urea - HELD THAT:- Whether the petitioner’s product is Technical Grade Urea, or the Fertilizer Grade Urea is a question of fact which can be determined on the basis of the relevant parameters as determined by the Laboratory on examination of the samples drawn from the imported goods. This Court absolutely has no expertise to hold that the Chemical Examiner’s report is incorrect. This question has to be decided by the authorities themselves. The writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed. Issues Involved:The issues involved in the judgment are the classification of imported goods as Technical Grade Urea or Fertilizer Grade Urea under tariff items 31021090 and 31021010 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.Details of the Judgment:Issue 1: Classification of Imported GoodsThe petitioner, engaged in the business of general stores, imported Technical Grade Urea, which was tested to have a Biuret content of 1.02%. The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to classify the goods as Technical Grade Urea under tariff item 31021090. The petitioner argued that the Biuret test alone does not determine the classification and that the Customs House Laboratory applied an incorrect test. The petitioner contended that the goods should be cleared as Technical Grade Urea.Issue 2: Legal Standpoint of RespondentsThe respondents argued that the Biuret content in the imported goods exceeded the maximum prescribed for Technical Grade Urea, making it ineligible for classification as such. They relied on Indian Standard Specifications which set the maximum Biuret content for Technical Grade Urea at 0.8%. The respondents highlighted the toxicity of Biuret to plants and its use as a non-protein nitrogen source in ruminant feed. The respondents emphasized the importance of accurate classification due to the serious consequences of higher Biuret content in products used for cattle feed.Issue 3: Court's DecisionThe Court held that the classification of the goods as Technical Grade Urea or Fertilizer Grade Urea is a factual determination based on relevant parameters identified by the Laboratory. The Court emphasized its lack of expertise to challenge the Chemical Examiner's report and concluded that the authorities should decide the classification issue. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the dispute regarding the classification of imported goods as Technical Grade Urea or Fertilizer Grade Urea based on the Biuret content and relevant standards, highlighting the significance of accurate classification for products intended for agricultural use.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
