Crude edible oil exemption turns on edible-grade character and post-refining use, not acid value at import.

Crude rice bran oil imported with high acid content was treated as eligible for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. because the governing test was the oil's edible-grade character and its intended edible use after refining, not the acid value at import. The analysis relied on the Customs Tariff Chapter 15 note, food standards regulations, and Board circulars, and concluded that denial of exemption was not justified. On limitation, the extended period based on alleged suppression was held unsustainable because the bills of entry and related assessments were filed on record and no reliable material showed deliberate non-disclosure. The duty demand was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether crude rice bran oil imported with high acid content was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. when the oil was intended for refining and subsequent edible use; (ii) Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period on the allegation of suppression of facts.

Issue (i): Whether crude rice bran oil imported with high acid content was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. when the oil was intended for refining and subsequent edible use.

Analysis: The exemption was examined in the light of the notification, the Supplementary Note to Chapter 15 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the Food Safety and Standards (Food Products Standards and Food Additives) Regulations, 2011, and the Board circulars. The governing test was not the acid content at the time of import but whether the crude oil was of edible grade and was ultimately used for edible purposes after refining. The authority followed earlier departmental clarifications and tribunal reasoning that the end use after refining is material for exemption eligibility.

Conclusion: The exemption was admissible to the assessee, and denial of benefit was not sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand could be sustained by invoking the extended period on the allegation of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The record showed that the bills of entry were filed and the goods were assessed with reference to the relevant test reports and classification. The acid content at the crude stage was held to be irrelevant to the exemption claim, and no reliable material established deliberate suppression or non-disclosure sufficient to justify the extended period.

Conclusion: Invocation of the extended period was not sustainable, and the demand failed on limitation as well.

Final Conclusion: The impugned duty demand was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: For imported crude edible oil, exemption depends on edible-grade character and eventual edible use after refining, not on the acid value at the stage of import; absent proven suppression, the extended limitation period cannot be invoked.

---