TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 320
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other bio-renewable products. The petitioner has been importing Seaweed Extract KAA03 for manufacture of organic fertilizers and bio-stimulants having end use application as agriculture inputs. The writ petitioner had been classifying the said product under CTH 3101 00 99 (Animal or vegetable fertilizers). While so, an import made in August 2023 encountered a road block. Tuticorin Customs took the stand that the product imported by the petitioner ought to have been classified under CTH 1212 29 10 (Seaweeds) and not under CTH 3101 00 99. The petitioner thereupon requested the first respondent herein to pass a speaking order in respect of the Bill of Entry No.7450919 dated 21.08.2023. The first respondent thereupon passed an order-in-origina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cting the Customs Authority to provisionally assess the imported goods under CTH 3101 00 99 against a bond without insisting on any bank guarantee. 6. The moot question for consideration is whether the goods imported by the writ petitioner have to be classified under CTH 3101 00 99 or under CTH 1212 29 10. 7. I find considerable merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner that when the dispute was whether the classification should be under CTH 3101 00 99 or under CTH 1212 29 10, the adjudicating authority could not have hit upon a third classification. The original dispute was whether the product was a vegetable fertilizer or Seaweed per se. The adjudicating authority ought to have categorized the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... was concluded in February 2024. We are now in October 2025. It is not known as to why the appellate authority had not disposed of the writ petitioner's appeal till date. Since the adjudicating authority had already classified the goods in question as Plant Growth Regulator, though it was in respect of one Bill of Entry, neither the assessing officer nor the adjudicating authority can be expected to take a different stand in respect of the subsequent consignments of the very same goods. Therefore, the question that calls for consideration is regarding the course of action that has to be adopted during the intervening period. 10. Since the appellate authority had not decided the issue, the assessing officer is also unable to pass any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stitute a Plant Growth Regulator are present in the goods in question. In fact, that is not even the case of the respondents. Probably, that was why the Division Bench of Bombay High Court in the decision rendered in W.P.No.5349 of 2025 vide order dated 29.04.2025 (Biostadt India Limited Vs. Union of India & Others) had permitted provisional release of such goods on furnishing of bond alone. The Customs authority were mandated not to insist on bank guarantee from the importer. The petitioner asserts before me that the goods that were the subject matter before the Bombay High Court and the goods that are imported by the writ petitioner are identical. 13. The petitioner has been importing goods right from 2017 till August 2023. They were c....