TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 1063
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t claims to have imported 177.38 metric tons of Base Oil from a foreign supplier and filed a Bill of Entry dated 17.02.2021 classifying the product under Customs Tariff Item [CTI] 2710 19 71. The appellant's also claim that along with the Bills of Entry, it had also filed previous reports of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory [CRCL] regarding the product. 4. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, on the basis of intelligence that certain importers were mis-declaring the goods, put on hold the 10 containers of the appellant for examination and test. Statements of various persons were also recorded. During the examination, representative samples were drawn from each of the 10 containers, but as the goods in all the containers were found to be identical, sample from one container was forwarded to CRCL for testing by a letter dated 01.03.2023. Another sample from the same container was also sent to the Society for Petroleum Laboratory [SFPL] for testing by a letter dated 22.03.2021. 5. The test report dated 26.03.2021 was submitted by CRCL. It tested 7 characteristic out of 10 and it mentions that the sample meets the requirements of Kerosene as per IS: 1459: 2018 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Customs Act. A penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs was also imposed on the appellant under section 114AA of the Customs Act. Penalty to the extent of Rs. 15 lakhs was imposed upon Dharampal Goyal under section 112 (a) (i) of the Customs Act and penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs under section 114 AA of the Customs Act. Penalty of Rs. 15 lakhs was imposed upon Sorabh Goyel under section 112 (a) (i) and Rs. 10 lakhs under section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 11. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant also Sorabh Goyel and Dhrampal Goyal filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), by the order dated 05.09.2022, allowed the appeal filed by the Dhrampal Goyal. The order passed by the Joint Commissioner imposing penalty upon Sorabh Goyel and the appellant was modified by reducing the amount of penalty. The rest of the order passed by the Joint Commissioner was upheld. 12. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are reproduced below:- "I also note that both the laboratories are independent government laboratories, which are well equipped and have highly skilled & trained staff to conduct such test. There is no reason to doubt the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e impugned goods were mis-declared as 'Base Oil' and classified under CTH 2710 1971 but actually the goods were 'Kerosene, and Kerosene is specifically covered under CTH 2710 1932. Therefore, I hold that the Adjudicating Authority has correctly classified the impugned goods under CTH 2710 1932 instead of CTH 2710 1971" (emphasis supplied) 13. Accordingly, the appellant and Sorabh Goyel have filed appeals before the Tribunal. 14. Ms. Vidushi Shubham, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) placed reliance upon the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Commissioner of Customs, Kandla vs. Rajkamal Industrial Private Limited- 2022 (2) TMI 264-GUJARAT HIGH COURT to hold that even if 21 parameters were satisfied, the report submitted by the Government Agencies should be accepted, but this decision of the Gujarat High Court has now been set-aside by the Supreme Court in Gastrade International vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla- 2025 (392) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) and it has been held that all the parameters have to be satisfied. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, submitted that the three reports on which reliance ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prescribed cannot be considered to be a definitive opinion to take the view that the sample is indeed that of HSD. It would be speculative or assumptive to say on the basis of the aforesaid opinion that the sample is that of HSD. xxxx xxxx xxxx 54. One noticeable aspect in the present case is that the Adjudicating Authority/Tribunal/High Court had been called upon to decide this issue, when there are clearly laid down scientific criteria to determine whether the oil in issue is HSD or not. The fact to be proved herein is not an incident, situation, phenomenon or happening that may require a bundle of evidence to prove its existence based on the standard of preponderance of probability. The issue involved is about the proper classification of an existing material/article based on certain specified specifications. For this one only needs to refer to the specifications mentioned under IS 1460:2005 and once the sample conforms to the specifications, it would be accordingly identified/classified as HSD which would not require any analysis or appreciation of evidence. The rules do not provide that any substance that partly complies with the aforesaid parameters will be ....