TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 848
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lm oil (edible grade)' and, classifying them under heading 15111000 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty in terms of sl. no. 34. of customs notification no. 26/03-Cus dated 1st March 2003. The said concession is available for 'crude palm oil (edible grade)' having an acid value of 2% or more and total carotenoid (as beat carotene) in the range of 500-2500 mg/kg in loose or bulk form. The cargo had been procured as a 'high sea sale' from a total of 1474.941 metric tons shipped to M/s Kamani Oil Industries by M/s Kuok Oils & Grains Pte Ltd, Singapore from Belawan, Indonesia. 2. The imported goods were subject to provisional assessment against a test bond and the samples d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e claim of the appellant that the decision was handed down without following 'due process' viz. subjecting the credentials of the test report to scrutiny. 4. The two lower authorities concur in their finding that the carotenoid content in the imported 'crude palm oil' is below the stipulated 500 mg/kg, that the downward revision of the floor to 250 mg/kg in the amending notification of 2005 has only a prospective applicability, as in Bombay Oil Industries v. Union of India [1995(77)ELT 32 (SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that, even where an error occurring in the original notification was corrected by a subsequent amendment, the conditions in the original notification, despite being impossible to fulfill, cannot be deviated from. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ith disregard to the provisions of section 164 of Customs Act, 1962 cannot be relied upon. It was also pointed out that the progressive elimination of carotenoid content in 'crude palm oil' has been acknowledged by the technical evaluation narrated in the decision of the Tribunal in Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs (Prev), Jamnagar [2006 (206) ELT 827 (Tri-Mumbai)]. 6. Learned Authorized Representative reiterated the contents of the order-in-original and order-in-appeal. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in Oswal Petrochemicals Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai [2010 (259) ELT 573 (Tri-Mumbai)]. 7. Having heard both sides and perused the various documents, we find that the determinant in this dispu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he proper officer considered it necessary to initiate action for denial of benefit of exemption notification. Had the importer been placed on notice promptly about the outcome of the test, challenges to establish the credibility of the test, including re-test, was possible. This failure was compounded by the impropriety of disallowing cross-examination to ascertain adherence to the protocols that are essential to the validation of the test report which has been laid down in re Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. It would appear to us that such an exercise after this lapse of time is not an acceptable substitute. The frailties adduced by the appellant, viz., presence of importer at the drawal of samples, the drawal of samples from every tank, the sto....