Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Yara Fertilizers India Pvt Ltd vs Mangalore-Cus on 27 January, 2026
C/21092-21093/2018
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE
TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. 1
Customs Appeal No. 21092 of 2018
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 85-88/2018 dated 13.02.2018
passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.
M/s. Yara Fertilizers India Pvt. Ltd.
No.402, Suyog Fusion, Appellant(s)
Dhole Patil Road, Sangamwadi,
Pune - 411 011.
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Customs
New Custom House, Panamur, Respondent(s)
Mangalore.
WITH Customs Appeal No. 21093 of 2018 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 85-88/2018 dated 13.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore.
M/s. Yara Fertilizers India Pvt. Ltd.
No.402, Suyog Fusion, Appellant(s) Dhole Patil Road, Sangamwadi, Pune - 411 011.
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Customs
New Custom House, Panamur,
Mangalore. Respondent(s)
APPEARANCE:
Ms. Purvi Asati and Ms. Shradha Pandey, Advocates for the Appellant. Shri Maneesh Akhoury, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE DR. D.M. MISRA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MRS. R. BHAGYA DEVI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Page 1 of 10 C/21092-21093/2018 FINAL ORDER NO. 20078 - 20079 / 2026 DATE OF HEARING: 18.09.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 27.01.2026 PER: R. BHAGYA DEVI These two Appeals No. C/21093 and C/21092/2018 are filed by the appellant M/s. Yara Fertilizers India Pvt. Ltd. against Order-in-Appeal No. 85-88/2018 dated 13.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bengaluru.
2. The issue in brief is that the appellant had imported 'Calcium Nitrate with Boron' classifying the same under CTH 3102 6000 claiming basic customs duty exemption under Notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012. The benefit of the said Notification was denied by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the decision of the original authority in confirming the customs duty amount of Rs.12,37,259/- and Rs.26,47,335/- Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is in appeal before us.
3. The Learned Counsel submits that they are engaged in the import of various types and grades of fertilizers from related foreign suppliers. The disputed product was imported from M/s. Yara International ASA Norway, a global leader in agricultural products and environmental protection agents including nitrates, calcium nitrates and Nitrogen Phosphorus Potassium (NPK). The appellant was issued with a valid license for import and trading of fertilizers and during the period of dispute, the appellant imported 'Calcium Nitrate with Boron' classifying the same under CTH 3102 6000. It is submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) has denied the benefit of exemption Notification No. 12/2012- Cus [Sl. No. 202 I (b)] dated 17.03.2012 on the ground that the impugned product 'Yaraliva Nitrabor' is not 100% water soluble Page 2 of 10 C/21092-21093/2018 Calcium Nitrate Fertilizer and on the ground that they do not satisfy the specifications given under Sl. No.4 of 1(h) of Part-A of Schedule 1 of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 (FCO). Referring to the Notification, it is submitted that the item imported is a water-soluble Calcium Nitrate Fertilizer and also satisfies the specification provided under FCO. It is submitted that plants absorb the fertilizers through one of the following two mechanism:
a. Foliar absorption wherein the plants absorb the water and nutrients through their leaves, primarily via the cuticle and stomata. In this mechanism, the fertilizers are mixed with water and sprayed on the leaves.
b. Soil based absorption wherein the plants absorb the nutrients through their roots again through the water medium.
3.1. Further, it is stated that both the above-mentioned mechanism necessities the dissolution of nutrients in the water so that the same may be absorbed by the plant either through leaves or roots; hence, it is submitted that Revenue has misinterpreted the term water soluble fertilizers as 100% water-
soluble complex fertilizers to deny the benefit of the Notification. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Government of Kerala Vs. Mother Superior Adoration Convent: 2021 (376) ELT 242 (S.C.) to emphasise that the benefit of Notification should be construed in accordance with the object of the Notification. It is also stated that the goods are covered under Part-A of the Schedule-1 of the FCO and further, it is stated that the impugned goods are 'Calcium Nitrate' fertilizer only as the major ingredient is calcium nitrate constituting 99.5%, while the presence of Boron is 0.3%.
Page 3 of 10C/21092-21093/2018 Reliance is placed on the following decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of:
• Vikram Plasticizers vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and ST, Ahmedabad: 2023 (7) TMI 1068 CESTAT Ahmedabad;
• M/s. Time Technoplast Ltd. vs. CC. Kandla: 2024 (5) TMI 855-CESTAT Ahmedabad; and • Deepak Fertilizers and Petrochemicals Vs. CC, 2002 (139) ELT 328 (Tri-Mum.) 3.2. Further, it is submitted that the impugned goods cannot be considered as fortified fertilizer under Sl.No.9 of I(g) of Part-A of Schedule-1 of the FCO as the impugned goods contain 0.5% water insoluble particles; while Sl.No.9 does not specify any water insoluble particles. Hence, the benefit of the Notification cannot be denied. Further, it is submitted that the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Ahmedabad vide Order-in-Appeal No.MUN-CUSTM-000-APP-064-25-26 dated 11.06.2025 held that the presence of 0.3% Boron does not alter the essential character of 'Yaraliva Nitrabor' as 'Calcium Nitrate' and extended the benefit of the Notification. Relying on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in the case of Opal Exports Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs 1992 (60) ELT 232 (Cal.) and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Damodar J. Malpani vs. Collector-2002 (146) ELT 483 (S.C.), it is submitted that Revenue cannot adopt different stands on a particular issue.
3.3. It is also submitted that the load port report/load analysis report of the impugned goods was not provided to the appellant and hence, any reliance on that cannot be justified as is held in the case of DCM Shriram vs. CC: 2024 (3) TMI 648 CESTAT Ahmedabad.
Page 4 of 10C/21092-21093/2018
4. The Learned Authorised Representative (AR) for the Revenue submitted that the original authority has given a detail finding as to how the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the Notification No. 12/2012-Cus [Sl.No.202(I)(b)] which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.
5. Heard both sides. The appellant had filed two Bills of Entry dated 22.05.2017 and 01.06.2017 in Appeal No. C/21092/2018 and 4 Bills of Entry in Appeal No. C/21093/2018 for the period from 06.04.2017 to 01.06.2017 declaring the imported goods as Calcium Nitrate with Boron (Double salt of Calcium Nitrate with Boron Yaraliva Nitrabor) classifying the same under CTH 3102 6000, which is not in dispute and claimed the benefit of Notification No.12/2012-Cus; dated 17.03.2012. The only dispute is whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of the exemption under Sl.No.202 (I)(b) of the Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012. The relevant Notifications with specific Sl. Nos. along with the Fertiliser Control Order, 1985 is placed below:
Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012 Effective rates of basic and additional duty for specified goods falling under Chapters 1 to 98 --
In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), No. 21/2002-Customs, dated the 1st March, 2002 Published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i), vide number G.S.R. 118(E) dated the 1st March, 2002, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts the goods of the description specified in column (3) of the Table below or column (3) of Page 5 of 10 C/21092-21093/2018 the said Table read with the relevant List appended hereto, as the case may be, and falling within the Chapter, heading, sub-heading or tariff item of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975) as are specified in the corresponding entry in column (2) of the said Table, when imported into India,-
(a) from so much of the duty of customs leviable thereon under the said First Schedule as is in excess of the amount calculated at the standard rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (4) of the said Table;
(b) from so much of the additional duty leviable thereon under sub-
section (1) of section 3 of the said Customs Tariff Act 1975 (51 of 1975) as is in excess of the additional duty rate specified in the corresponding entry in column (5) of the said Table, subject to any of the conditions, specified in the Annexure to this notification, the condition number of which is mentioned in the corresponding entry in column (6) of the said table.
TABLE S. Chapter Description of goods Standard Additional Condition No. Heading rate duty rate No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 196 31(Except 3102 2100, 3102 5000, 3104 3000, 3105 2000, All Goods 7.5% - -
3105 3000, 3105 4000, 3105 5100, 3105 5900, 3105 6000, 201 31 Potassium Nitrate, in a 5% - -
form indicative of its use for manurial purpose.
202 31 The following Water
Soluble Fertilizers
included in Schedule
1, part A of the
Fertilizers Control Order,
namely :- 5%
- --
a) a) Potassium nitrate (13:0:45) 5%
(b) b) Calcium nitrate
Page 6 of 10
C/21092-21093/2018
Fertilizer Control Order, 1985
5.1. The Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order denies the benefit of the above notification on the ground that the imported product 'Boronated Calcium Nitrate Fertilizer read with Fertilizer (Control) Order, 1985, the benefit of the notification is available only to water soluble calcium nitrate fertilizer. Alleging that the product imported by the appellant is a 'Fortified Page 7 of 10 C/21092-21093/2018 Fertilizer' which cannot be treated as water soluble calcium nitrate fertilizer. Further, the Commissioner (A) observes that the analysis report placed on record by the appellant has boron content 0.3%, water insoluble 0.5%, bulk density 1.10%, Nitrogen 15.4%, Nitrate 14.1%, Calcium 18.3% etc. which clearly differentiates fertilizer calcium nitrate with that of boronated calcium nitrate vis-à-vis solubility. The Commissioner (A) also observes that the benefit of Notification can be extended only if it meets the specifications of the FCO as indicated at Sl.No.2/1 (i) Part-A Schedule-1 wherein the said fertilizer should contain:
(i) Total Nitrogen (Ammoniacal and Nitrate form) per cent by weight minimum - 15.5%.
(ii) Nitrate Nitrogen as N per cent by weight, minimum - 14.5%
(iii) Water soluble Calcium (as Ca) as per cent by weight, minimum -
18.5%.
(iv) Matter insoluble in water per cent by weight, maximum - 1.5%.
Page 8 of 10C/21092-21093/2018 5.2. As seen from the above Notification, the water-soluble fertilizers included in schedule-1 Part-A of the FCO are eligible for the benefit of 5% Basic Customs Duty. Admittedly, the item imported is boronated calcium nitrate, the only question that arises is this a water-soluble fertilizer and even if a negligible percentage of boron is added to it, whether it still remains to be calcium nitrate to enjoy the benefit of the Notification. We find that the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985 under the category of Fortified Fertilizers at Sl.No.9 Calcium Nitrate with Boron is mentioned wherein under the specifications column water soluble calcium is 17.1% and Boron by weight is 0.250. In the instant case, the Boron content in the product imported by the appellant is to the extent of 0.3% and as claimed by the Revenue it appears that the product is rightly classifiable under the category of Fortified Fertilizers. We also find that I(h) under the FCO under the category of 100% water-soluble complex fertilizers calcium nitrate is included under which water insoluble is 1.5%. Since, calcium nitrate with boron under Sl.No.9 under the category of Fortified Fertilizers matches to the specifications given by the appellant for the product imported by them, the benefit of the Notification meant for water-soluble fertilizers cannot be extended. Accordingly, we find justification of the Revenue in denying the benefit of the Notification. It is also on record that 'Yaraliva Nitrabor' imported by the appellant with the addition of boron to calcium nitrate increases elasticity of tissues to prevent cracking of tissues which clearly acknowledges the fact that calcium nitrate is different from boronated calcium nitrate. The Notification is for calcium nitrate and not for boronated calcium nitrate, therefore, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar & Company: 2018 (361) Page 9 of 10 C/21092-21093/2018 E.L.T. 577 (S.C) words cannot be included into the Notification since an exemption Notification has to be strictly interpreted. Therefore, the benefit of the Notification cannot be extended wherein the Notification clearly mentions only the calcium nitrate and even in the FCO, 1985 only calcium nitrate is mentioned under the category of water-soluble fertilizers, the fact that it is water-soluble as claimed by the appellant will not change the fact that calcium nitrate is different from boronated calcium nitrate. In view of the above, we are in the agreement with the Revenue that the benefit of the Notification No.12/2012-Cus. dated 17.03.2012 cannot be extended.
6. In view of the above, the impugned order is upheld and appeals are dismissed.
(Order pronounced in Open Court on 27.01.2026.) (D.M. MISRA) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) (R. BHAGYA DEVI) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) rv Page 10 of 10