Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Suman Trading Company. vs C.C. (Icd) New Delhi on 20 May, 2025
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
NEW DELHI
PRINCIPAL BENCH-COURT NO. 1
CUSTOMS APPEAL NO. 115 OF 2011
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CCA/ICD/207/2010 dated
03.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (ICD, TKD, New
Delhi]
SUMAN TRADING COMPANY. .....APPELLANT
R-15 Rita Block, Hemraj Shopping Center,
Vikas Marg, Sahakarpur, Delhi 92
Vs.
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-C.C. (ICD)
.....RESPONDENT
NEW DELHI ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi-110020 Appearance:
Present for the Appellant : None Present for the Respondent: Shri Rajesh Singh, Authorised Representative CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. P. V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) FINAL ORDER NO. 50771 /2025 DATE OF HEARING/ DECISION : 20/05/2025 JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA:
1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 03.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the appeal has been dismissed and the order 30.1.2010 passed by the Additional Commissioner has been confirmed.
2. It transpires from the records that a specific intelligence was received that certain importers were engaged in the fraudulent import of crude palm oil by mis-declaring the description as palm acid oil. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant calling upon the appellant to explain as to why 53.39 MT of crude palm oil imported by it but declared as palm 2 C/115/2011 acid oil should not be confiscated and the value should not be rejected under section 14 of the Customs Act, 19621 read with Rule 4 and Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules and why it should not be re-
determined. The show cause notice also called upon the appellant to show cause why customs duty amounting to Rs. 7,75,194/- should not be demanded.
3. The appellant filed a reply to the show cause notice and denied the allegations made therein.
4. The Additional Commissioner, by order dated 30.01.2010, noted that the three representative samples each from first, middle and last raw of drums of each container were drawn and sent to the Central Revenue Control Laboratory in Delhi for chemical test and analysis. The report submitted by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory mentions that on the basis of any analytical findings, the sample does not confirm to the specification of acid palm oil. The Additional Commissioner also noticed that for a product to qualify as palm acid oil, the free fatty acid should be more than 50% as per the standard prescribed by the Palm Oil Refiners Association of Malaysia, but in the instant case it was found to be less than 50%. The Additional Commissioner also found that the composition of crude palm oil is similar to the results shown in the report of Central Revenue Control Laboratory and hence concluded that the material found in the containers was, in fact, crude palm oil. Accordingly, the declared unit price imported by the appellant 1 the Customs Act 3 C/115/2011 was rejected and was re-determined and the differential customs duty was confirmed with penalty and fine.
5. This order passed by the Additional Commissioner was challenged by the appellant by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The relevant portion of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is reproduced below;
"11. It is seen that the department assessed the impugned goods @ USD 447 PMT on the basis of statement of Sh. Rakesh Kumar and Sh. Anil Kumar Arora allegedly indenting agents. The Appellant has contested that neither said Sh. Rakesh Kumar nor Sh. Anil Kumar Arora was their intending agent in respect of consignment under reference. But it is a fact that three representative samples each from front, middle and last raw of drums of container were drawn and sent to chemical examination. On perusal of the table published by MPOB, highlights the typical acid composition of various palm oil products & not product specification of various Palm Oil Products, it appears that the composition of the crude Palm Oil is very much similar to the results shown by the CRCL, in respect of the goods contained in the said container as the FFA value shown in the report of CRCL was close to the parameters of Oleic Acid mentioned in Malaysia Palm Oil Board (MPOB). Hence, it was concluded that the goods contained in the said container were Crude Palm Oil and classification under CTH 15111000 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellant has also contended that the impugned goods were not imported from Malaysia. But fact remains chemical composition of the goods remains the same irrespective of the country from where they are imported. The chemical report from CRCL indicated that the impugned goods were Crude Palm Oil and classification under CTH 15111000 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Therefore, mis-declaration in respect of description of goods stands established."
(emphasis supplied)
6. No one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. On 18.03.2025 when the matter was taken up, the following order was passed;
"Case has been called out, but no one has appeared on behalf of the appellant. On 10.02.2025, the following order was passed:-
"Learned counsel for the appellant seeks an adjournment to enable the learned counsel to contact the appellant. List on March 18, 2025. It is made clear 4 C/115/2011 that no further adjournment shall be granted to the appellant as the appeal is of the year 2011"
List on May 20, 2025. It is made clear that the appeal may be decided on merits even if the appellant does not appear."
7. It is for this reason that the appeal is being decided after hearing the learned authorized representative appearing for the department.
8. The impugned order has placed reliance upon the report submitted by the Central Revenue Control Laboratory. The report clearly mentions that it is clear from the analytical findings that the sample does not confirm to the specification of the acid oil. The Additional Commissioner after examining the report also recorded a finding that the composition was that of crude palm oil.
9. It, therefore, a clear case where the appellant did not correctly mention the product in the Bills of Entry. The transaction value was correctly rejected and re-determined by treating the product as crude palm oil.
10. There is no error in the finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.
(Order dictated and pronounced in open court) (JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA) PRESIDENT (P. V. SUBBA RAO) MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) Tejo