TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (9) TMI 233
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ay solicited by the Customs Department, (iv) Affidavit dated 12th July, 2004 of Dr. S.P. Potnis, Professor of Polymer Technology and Director of Department of Chemical Technology, University of Bombay, (v) Letter dated 7th April, 2004 of The Sugar Technologists' Association of India, and (vi) Letter dated 11th June, 2004 of Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, (vii) Extract from the Book titled, "DEFOAMING Theory and Industrial Applications". 2.The Department, however, without disputing, the material or arriving at or and giving any reasons why Refined Coconut Oil is not a Reducing chemical and Antifoaming chemical used the manufacture of White Sugar and accordingly was to be objected for clearance under the DFRC licence produced. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Group 7, by his order and decision contained in, and communicated by, his letter dated 6th August, 2004 refused to allow clearance to the said goods against the DFRC licences produced and holding that clearance to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; Letter dated 28th April, 2004 of National Sugar Institute, Government of India, Kanpur. (c) Letter dated 23rd June, 2004 of IIT, Bombay. (d) Affidavit dated 12th July, 2004 of Dr. P. Potnis Retd. Professor of Polymer Technology and Director of Department of Chemical Technology, University of Bombay. (e) Letter dated 7th April, 2004 of The Sugar Technologists Association of India, and (f) Letter dated 11th June, 2004 of Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs and Public Distribution. I find that the report of DYCC is very specific on the issue. The appellants should have challenged the opinion of DYCC, which they have not done. Accordingly, I am unable to accept these fresh materials. Further more as per the Licence, the goods allowed as per the licence are antifoaming agents (antifoaming chemicals)/viscosity reducing agents (viscosity reducing chemicals). The imported goods are classified under Chapter 15, as Vegetable oil, and the same cannot be called a chemical, which s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Appellant should have challenged the said opinion ignores the law and the facts. Section 144 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides for drawl of samples, it does not have any provision for appeal on the report of Dy. Chief Chemist, like erstwhile Rule 56(4) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Moreover, there cannot be an appeal, by an Importer, against an opinion tendered by Dy. Chief Chemist. An appeal under section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 can be taken cognizance of, only against an order or decision of an Officer of Customs lower in rank than Commissioner of Customs. There are no orders, shown to us or relied by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), that Dy. Chief Chemist of the Customs Laboratory, is an Officer of Customs, lower in rank them the Commissioner of Customs. That the said officer is appointed under section 3(e) of the Customs Act, 1962 as an Officer of Customs is also not shown. The reasons arrived at by the Commissioner exhibit a total lack of application of knowledge with a pre set mind to dismiss an appeal, without having any reason to do so. This order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is therefore to be set aside. (d) The Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....; In view of the certificates/letters/affidavits of leading technical/expert authorities as well as the clear mention of the use of coconut oil in the sugar industry as antifoaming/viscosity reducing agent. In the absence of any contrary evidence having been produced by the department to rebut and counter the aforesaid evidence solicited and got by them, the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) were bound to accept the said evidence and to hold that the goods imported were covered by licences produced and to have not upheld the new that the goods (Refined Coconut Oil) have been found to be not possessing the properties of Antifoaming and viscosity reducing agents making that clearance under DFRC is questionable and the benefit of DFRC licences can be extended. There is not a single piece of evidence produced by the Assistant Commissioner, to establish that Refined Coconut Oil does not possess Antifoaming and viscosity reducing properties. On the other hand the evidence obtained by Customs & before the Assistant Commissioner had clearly and consistently established that Refined Coconut Oil possesses Antifoaming and viscosity reducing properties. The Assistant Comm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tracts Service) Registration number. The department at the make much leval has sent the report of the ld. Professor of IIT should have been send to Dy. CC, it lists the literature exhibiting the facts contrary to the opinion by Dy. Chief Chemist. Further it is clear from that literature hereto that Coconut Oil is a chemical. One cannot deny IIT Professors reports without any basis. (h) A, DFRC license does not require that the goods imported, should be separate chemically defined compounds. The only requirement is that the goods should be "antifoaming chemical" or "viscosity reducing chemical". The fact that the Coconut oil is an antifoaming and viscosity reducing chemical is clearly established by the said certificates/letters of IIT etc. The Assistant Commissioner has not disputed that coconut oil is not a chemical. Nor has he produced any evidence to establish that coconut oil is not a chemical. The very fact that coconut oil is listed in the Condensed Chemical Dictionary having CAS number and IIT's Prof. report is itself sufficient to establish that. The Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in travelling beyond the Order of the Assistant....