2012(12)LCX0057

IN THE CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

S/Shri P.G. Chacko, Member (J) and Mathew John, Member (T)

Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd.

Versus

Commissioner Of Customs (Air), Chennai

Stay Order No. 814/2012, dated 6-12-2012 in Application No. C/Staij/149/2012 in Appeal No. C/204/2012

Cases Quoted -

Kasturi Foods & Chemicals v. Collector - 1994(12)LCX0124 Eq 1995 (077) ELT 0584 (Tribunal) - Referred [Para 2]

Advocated By -

Shri R. Raghavan, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri K.S.V.V. Prasad, Jt. Commissioner (AR),for the Respondent.

[Order per : P.G. Chacko, Member (J)]. -

This application filed by the appellant seeks waiver and stay in respect of Customs duty of Rs. 13,57,549/-demanded from them in respect of goods declared as "Saccharomyces Boulardii" in the relevant Bill of Entry. The classification of the items given in the Bill of Entry was Heading 2918 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. In the relevant SCN, the imported item was alleged to be "yeast" falling under Heading 2102 of the said Schedule. The above demand was raised on this basis. In their reply to the SCN, the importer claimed classification as "medicament" under Heading 3003 on the ground that the commodity was actually meant for sale as 'medicament'. This claim of the importer was rejected and the demand of duty was confirmed against them.


2. After hearing both sides, we have found no prima facie case for the appellant for the following reasons :-

(i) The imported goods is, admittedly, "yeast" which is appropriately classifiable under Heading 2102 of the Schedule to the Tariff Act.

(ii) The claim of the appellant to classify the goods as "medicament" under Heading 3003 by reason of Note 1(f) to Chapter 21 is apparently hit by the terms of the Note itself inasmuch as, for exclusion of the product from the ambit of Chapter 21, it should be shown that the imported item was 'put up as a medicament' at the time of importation itself.

(iii) Yeast (active or inactive) was classified under Heading 2102 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act in the case of Kasturi Foods & Chemicals v. CCE, Bangalore - 1994(12)LCX0124 Eq 1995 (077) ELT 0584 (Tribunal).

Nobody has argued before us that there is no alignment between the headings under the two tariffs vis-a-vis the HSN.


3. The learned counsel has referred to a rest report obtained from the foreign manufacturer/supplier of the goods but the same cannot be considered as conclusive proof of the appellant's claim. The appellant has not pleaded financial hardships in the stay application.


4. In the result, no prima facie case exists for the appellant and they should make reasonable pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act. In the interest of justice, we direct them to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 10,00,000/-(Rupees Ten lakhs only) within 4 weeks and report compliance to the DR/AR on 10-1-2013. DR/AR to report to the Bench on 17-1-2013. Subject to due compliance, there will be waiver and stay in respect of the balance amount of duty.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)

Equivalent 2013 (291) ELT 0574 (Tri. - Chennai)