By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, AUG 25, 2016: THE appellant imported Benzopyrrole and declared the classification under heading 29331900.

Revenue did not agree. It was of the view that the goods are classifiable under heading 29339900 and, therefore, restricted as per ITC (HS) classification code.

Holding that the goods, being restricted, could not be imported without licence, the same were confiscated and penalty was also imposed on the appellant.

In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held thus -

"I have gone through the records of the case. I find that the lower authority rightly classified the impugned goods under sub-heading 29339900 and as per ITC (HS) classification code 29339900, the import of items covered under the said subheading was restricted and licence was required as per foreign trade policy. The appellant failed to produce the licence. I also find that the letter No. 01/89/150 Misc.3/AM 04/POL-1(A)/223 dated 14/07/2005 of DGFT wherein they stated that Benzopyrrole is covered under Exim Code 29339900 of ITC (HS) classification of import and export items 2004-09 and is freely importable. The impugned B/E was assessed prior to issuance of the letter dated 14/07/2005 of DGFT in respect of the classification that Benzopyrrole is freely importable. In such circumstances the benefit of free import of impugned goods could not be extended to the appellant".

Before the CESTAT, against this order, the appellant submitted that the final conclusion (supra) in the impugned order is contrary to the findings and is an obvious error that needs to be corrected.

The appeal filed in the year 2005 was heard recently.

None appeared for the appellant and the AR did not add much.

The Bench observed -

"4. We find that in the above paragraph of the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly found that the said products is freely importable and on the basis of DGFT letter and still denied the benefit. We find merit in the submission of the appellant. The impugned order without contesting the content of the DGFT letter, the Commissioner (Appeals) could not have rejected the content thereof."

In fine, the appeal was allowed.

(See 2016-TIOL-2178-CESTAT-MUM)