TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 655
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it - other), chargeable to Customs duty @ 50% and IGST @12%) and that the alleged misclassification resulted in a shortfall of Rs.3,09,25,503/-. Accordingly, a Less Charge-cum-Demand Notice dated 05.05.2021 and subsequently, a Show Cause Notice dated 15.12.2022 were issued seeking to reclassify the impugned goods under CTI 2009 3900; demanding differential duty amounting to Rs.3,09,25,503/-, along with applicable interest under Section 28AA; confiscation of impugned goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and proposing to impose penalty under Section 112(a) and/or Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. By a corrigendum dated 15.12.2022, duty demand was revised to Rs.3,10,28,387/-.Principal Commissioner of Customs passed the impugned Order-in-Original No. 184/2023-24/Commr/Gr I&IA/NS-1/ CAC/ JNCH, dated 01.12.2023,classifying the imported goods under Tariff Entry 2009 3900; confirming demand of duty of Rs.3,10,28,387/-, along with interest; confiscating the goods while giving option redeem on payment of a fine of Rs.5,50,00,000/- and imposing a penalty of Rs.3,10,28,387/- under Section 114A. 3. Shri Prabhat Kumar, Learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that impugn....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o as "mandarin orange" in trade and commerce:(https://www.indiamart. com/proddetail/kinnow-fruit-plant-23077870333.html). * E-commerce site "Pluckk" confirms that, in trade and commerce, "mandarin" is commonly known as "mandarin orange.: (https://pluckk.in/orange-mandarin-imported) * The Spruce Eats website mentions mandarins are oranges (https://www.thespruceeats.com/what-are-mandarin oranges1807684) 5. Learned Counsel submits also that upon import, impugned goods are packaged after processing and marketed as orange juice, not as mandarin juice and accordingly classifiable as held in State of Punjab Versus Federal GogulGoetze (India) Ltd. [2011 (267) ELT 602 (P &H)] Mandarin should be classified under "Oranges" as it is recognized as a variety of orange as held in Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, U.P vs A.R. Thermosets (Pvt.) Ltd [2016 (339) ELT 500 (S.C.)]. He submits that a look at the CTH 2009, indicates that the legislature did not create a separate heading for mandarin and Clementine juices, recognizing them as mere varieties of orange juice. He submits that interpretation of Tariff must be literal, without additions or deletions; Customs officers cannot....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....h intent to evade payment of duty; Section 111(m) comes in to force if any misdeclaration is there; the issue involves classification of goods and interpretation of the provisions of the Tariff; all declarations in the Bill of Entry, Invoices and other documents have been made correctly; there is no case of suppression in any form; no misdeclaration/ suppression can be alleged in case of Classification Dispute; it is a settled principle of law that mere difference of opinion on classification of goods does not lead to a charge of misdeclaration leading to confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty. He submits that as the goods were already released and cleared, confiscation cannot be upheld and fine be levied. In support of his contentions, he relies on the following. * Pahwa Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. V/s CCE, Delhi [2005 (189) ELT 257 (S.C.)] * Uniworth Textiles Ltd. V/s CCE, Raipur [2013 (288) ELT 161 (S.C.)] * CCE, Mumbai - IV V/s Damnet Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. [2007 (216) ELT 3 (S.C.)] * Anand Nishikawa Co. Ltd. Vs CCE, Meerut 2005 [(188) ELT 149 (S.C.)] * Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs CCE, Madras [1994 (74) ELT 9 (S.C.)] * CC,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....irmed by the Supreme Court2010 (255) ELTA120 (S.C.)] and in Bussa Overseas & Properties P. Ltd. Vs C.L. Mahar ACC, Bombay [2004 (163) ELT 304(Bom) (affirmed in (2004 (163) ELT A160 (S.C.)] He further relies on Shiv KripaIspatPvt Ltd Vs CCE&C Nashik[2009 (235) ELT 623 (TRI. - LB)] and Rishi Ship Breakers [2015 (318) ELT A259 (Bom).] 9. Shri Deepak Sharma, Learned authorised representative for the revenue, reiterates the findings of the impugned order and submits that the Commissioner correctly pointed out that the Customs Tariff is structured to make a distinction between "Oranges" (CTI 08051000) and "Mandarins" (CTI 08052100); the clear legislative intent to treat them as distinct fruits extends to their juices too; reliance on the general interpretation of "Mandarin" from sources like Wikipedia and other ecommerce sites is not relevant in view of the specific classification rules within the Customs Tariff; commissioner's finding is consistent with the Harmonized System (HS) Nomenclature, which also has separate codes for these fruits and their juices. He submits that the appellant's claim that the classification scheme of Chapter 8 cannot be "imported" into Chapter 20, is i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....row compass i.e. whether the orange/mandarin juice concentrate is classifiable under CTI 2009 1100 as per the appellants or under CTI 2009 3900 as per Revenue. It is the case of the Revenue that there is a separate classification for oranges and mandarins under Chapter 8 and therefore, the imported mandarin juice concentrate cannot be classified as orange juice but falls squarely under the juice/concentrates under other citrus fruits. 13. The argument of the appellants is that * Items are to be classified under respective entries subject to Chapter/Section notes and the classification under Chapter 8 cannot be carried on to Chapter 20. * Oranges are commercially known as Mandarin Oranges and are not different species from Oranges. * The online sellers of mandarin refer the fruit to be Mandarin Orange; so does the technical Literature. * The appellants are selling the imported juice concentrate as orange juice after processing. 15. In addition to the above, there is a dispute regarding the applicability of extended period of limitation. 16. We find that it will be necessary to have a look at the rival entries in the tariff. Chapter 8 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zen (item 2009.12.00) and others (item No 2009.19.00). Grapefruit Juice; pomelo Juice are covered under CTI 20092100(Brix value not exceeding 20) and CTI 20092900 others. Single Citrus Fruit Juice is classifiable under 2009.31.00 (Brix value not exceeding 20) and 'others' under sub-heading 2009.39.00. The HSN Explanatory Notes to Heading 20.09 expressly confirm that juice concentrates are classifiable within this heading. The Explanatory Notes further clarify the role of the Brix value in distinguishing concentrated from non-concentrated juices. The relevant extract of the HSN Explanatory notes to CTI 20.09 reads: "The Juices of this heading may be concentrated (Whether or not frozen) or in the form of crystals or powder provided, in the latter case, that they are entirely or almost entirely soluble in water. Such products are usually obtained by processes involving either heat (whether or not in a vacuum) or cold (lyophilisation). Certain concentrated juices can be distinguished from their corresponding non-concentrated Juices on the basis of their Brix value (see Subheading Note 3 to this Chapter)." 17.1. The meaning of "Brix value" is clarified under Subheading note ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sites and submit that Trade and commerce considers mandarins are one type of oranges only and thus, the mandarin orange concentrate should be classified as orange concentrate. Ongoing through some of the references submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, we find that trade too is aware of the distinction. It is another point that the difference may not be relevant for some uses. 21. We find that Food Struct informs that Oranges and mandarin oranges seem like two different sizes of the same thing. Belonging to the same Rutaceae family and Citrus genus they definitely have a lot in common, however they have their differences too. (https://foodstruct.com/ compare /oranges-vs-mandarin-orange). Similarly, S.J. Mandarin Grove also gives to understand that Unsure of the differences between these small citrus fruits, many people confuse often oranges, mandarins, Tangerines, Clementines, and Satsumas. In fact, throughout the United States, the terms mandarin and tangerine are used interchangeably, even though they are not the same thing (https://www.sandjmandarins.com/whats-the-difference-betweenoranges-mandarins-satsumas-clementines-tangerines. Thus, it cannot be said that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....93900 etc, available for juices of citrus fruits. It can be seen that wherever the legislature intended to include certain fruit they have done so. For example, 20092100, 20092900 refer to Grape fruit Juice and the entry includes pomelo juice too. This is not the case of orange juice. If it was the intention of the legislature to classify orange and mandarin orange juices under one entry, they would have specified so. The intention of the legislature to treat orange and mandarin orange separately, is evident from the separate entries under Chapter 8 for oranges and mandarin oranges. Though we find that appellant's argument that the scheme of Chapter 8 can not be carried to arrive at the classification of goods under Chapter 20, is acceptable, it helps to understand the intention of the legislature. Moreover, as the terms of the headings under Chapter 20 being clear and clarified by the Explanatory Notes, there is no scope for a different interpretation. 24. Grapefruits and pomelos are classified under 0805 40 00 and Grapefruit Juice, pomelo Juice are covered under item 20092100 (Brix value not exceeding 20) and others under 20092900. The grouping together of Grapefruits and pome....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ariff, recourse to trade parlance and common man's understanding is not warranted. We find there too the understanding is not uniform. We find that as per the document prepared by ministry of Agriculture, Government of India, categorically states that Kinnow / Mandarin fruit is a hybrid of two varieties viz. Citrus nobilis and Citrus deliciosa; it is commonly confused with Oranges, due to the similarity in their appearances, seasonal availability and nutritional benefits offered by both the fruits ( emphasis supplied). Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the argument of the appellant. Similarly, the argument on the basis of end use cannot be accepted as the end use cannot be a criteria for classifying imported goods. In view of the discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not required to be interfered as far as the merits of the case are concerned. Accordingly, we uphold the classification of Mandarin Orange Juice concentrate under Tariff entry 2009 3900, by the impugned order. 28. further, we find that Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) vs. Welkin Foods (2026) [38 Centax 104 (S.C.)/2026 (395) E.L.T. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed approach should be avoided, and the words should be understood within their legal context. Further, when a party asserts a meaning of a term based on common or trade parlance, it must present satisfactory evidence to support that claim. e. When a tariff item is general in nature and does not indicate a particular industry or trade circle, the common parlance understanding of that term is appropriate. However, when a tariff item is specific to a particular industry, the term must be understood as it is used within that specific trade circle. f. The common or trade parlance test cannot be used to override the clear mandate of the statute. Specifically: i. The test cannot be applied in a way that results in the reclassification of a good that is clearly identifiable under a particular heading according to the statute, simply because that good is marketed or called by a different name in trade or common parlance. ii. Conversely, the test cannot be used to challenge the classification of goods under a statutory heading if those goods retain the essential characteristics defined by that heading, even if they have a unique or specialised trade name. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ust be read consistently across the tariff. 32. We find that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Akbar BadruddinJiwani v. Collector 1990 [E.L.T. 161 (S.C.)] referred to in Welkin Foods( supra) declined to interpret "marble" in its common parlance sense because Entry 25.15 of the ITC Schedule separately enumerated marble, travertine, ecaussine, alabaster, and other calcareous stones. The Court held that if the common parlance meaning of "marble" were adopted to include all calcareous stones, it would render the separate enumeration of travertine, ecaussine, alabaster, and other calcareous stones completely otiose and redundant. 33. In view of the discussion, we hold that the mandarinorange concentrate imported by the appellants is correctly classified by the Revenue under Tariff Entry 2009 3900 as juice or concentrate of other Citric Fruits. Thus, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant. 34. Coming to the issue of invocation of extended period, we find that the appellant was a regular importer. The goods imported by them were being assessed under the tariff item declared by them over the years. The classification adopted by the appellant is very much ....