2025 (1) TMI 1379 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Condones Delay Due to Medical Reasons; Rules Paddle Wheel Aerators as Agricultural Machinery Under CTH 8436.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, accepting the appellant's medical condition as a valid reason. It remanded the case to the ... Classification of imported goods - Paddle Wheel Aerators - to be classified under CTH 8436 or under CTH 8479? - time limitation - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal on the sole ground that it was filed belatedly after 87 days. Since this is within the condonable period along with proper justification under Medical Certificate, in the normal course, the matter should have beed remanded to the ld.Commissioner (Appeals). The issue is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in M/S. SUYOG AGRO POULTRY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS CC (SEA - IMP.) , CHENNAI [2015 (12) TMI 998 - CESTAT CHENNAI], wherein this Tribunal has held that 'paddle wheel aerators are used for fisheries/aqua culture and are classifiable under chapter heading 8436 of the CTH.' Conclusion - Since there is no dispute that the paddle wheel aerators used in aqua farming by aqua farmers for cultivation of fish/shrimps etc., these are rightly to be considered as other agricultural machineries and rightly classifiable under Ch. 84368090. Appeal allowed. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal issues considered in this judgment include: Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) should be condoned based on the medical condition of the appellant's representative. The correct classification of the imported Paddle Wheel Aerators under the Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) - whether under CTH 8436 as claimed by the appellant or CTH 8479 as assessed by the Customs Officials. The applicability of the precedent set by the Tribunal in the case of M/s Suyog Agro Poultry Products Private Limited regarding the classification of similar goods.ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISDelay in Filing the Appeal Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant filed the appeal 87 days after the assessment of the Bills of Entry. The Commissioner (Appeals) has the discretion to condone delays within a permissible period if justified. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the delay was within the condonable period and supported by a medical certificate, which provided a reasonable justification for the delay. Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant submitted a medical certificate from P.D. Hinjuja National Hospital and Medical Research Centre, indicating hospitalization from 19.06.2017 to 24.06.2017. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the medical condition of the appellant's representative constituted a valid reason for the delay, warranting condonation. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Revenue did not provide substantial arguments against the condonation of delay, focusing instead on the merits of classification. Conclusions: The Tribunal would have remanded the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration on merits due to the justified delay.Classification of Paddle Wheel Aerators Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant argued for classification under CTH 8436, supported by a previous Tribunal decision, while Customs classified the goods under CTH 8479. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal referred to its earlier decision in the case of M/s Suyog Agro Poultry Products Private Limited, which established that paddle wheel aerators used in aquaculture are classifiable under CTH 8436 as agricultural machinery. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found that the paddle wheel aerators are used in aquaculture, aligning with the definition of agricultural machinery under CTH 8436. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the precedent, concluding that the goods should be classified under CTH 8436, not the residual CTH 8479. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the classification under CTH 8479 as unjustified, given the specific function and description of the goods. Conclusions: The Tribunal held that the goods are correctly classifiable under CTH 8436, entitling the appellant to a refund of the differential duty paid.SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS Preserve Verbatim Quotes of Crucial Legal Reasoning: 'Since there is no dispute that the paddle wheel aerators used in aqua farming by aqua farmers for cultivation of fish/shrimps etc., we are of the considered view that these are rightly to be considered as other agricultural machineries and rightly classifiable under Ch. 84368090.' Core Principles Established: The classification of goods should be based on their specific function and description. The Tribunal's previous decisions are binding unless overturned by a higher authority. Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order, and ruled that the appellant is entitled to consequential relief, including the refund of excess duty paid.