RBD palmolein is ineligible for the concessional duty rate applicable to crude palm oil.

The appellant imported 4,764.253 MTs of palm oil, declaring the entire cargo as Crude Palm Oil (CPO) under Customs Tariff Item 1511 1000 and claiming the concessional Basic Customs Duty (BCD) under Serial No. 57 of Notification No. 50/2017-Customs.

The Department relied on vessel loading and ullage records, correspondence and laboratory reports to allege that 2,304.029 MTs was RBD Palmolein, separately loaded from the balance quantity of CPO.

The adjudicating authority accepted the declaration for 2,460.224 MTs as CPO but classified the disputed quantity under Item 1511 9090, denied the concession, confirmed differential duty of Rs. 3,36,89,272, and ordered interest, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties.

The appeal challenged those findings and the applicable BCD rate.

Whether the disputed 2,304.029 MTs was CPO, eligible for the concessional rate under Serial No. 57 of Notification No. 50/2017-Customs, or RBD Palmolein.

Whether the loading records, ullage report, email correspondence, statements and laboratory reports could be relied upon to determine the goods’ identity.

Whether classification under Customs Tariff Item 1511 9090 was sustainable, including whether alleged mixing after discharge could determine classification.

Whether the correct BCD rate was 32.5% or 37.5%, and whether the extended-period demand, confiscation, redemption fine and penalties were sustainable.

Customs classification is governed by the Customs Tariff Act, the General Rules for Interpretation, relevant Section and Chapter Notes and, where appropriate, the HSN explanatory notes; food-safety standards do not themselves determine tariff classification, though they may provide corroborative technical evidence.

Eligibility for an exemption must be established by the person claiming it; the Tribunal applied Novapan India Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Hyderabad and Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai v. Dilip Kumar & Co. to that principle.

Customs adjudication applies the preponderance-of-probabilities standard, and an electronic record is not necessarily excluded for a certification defect where its authenticity is not genuinely disputed and it is corroborated; the Tribunal relied on ADG (Adjudication), DRI v. Suresh Kumar and Company, Impex Pvt. Ltd.

Sections 28(4) and 28AA govern recovery of duty and interest; Sections 111(m) and 111(o) concern confiscation for material discrepancy and failure to satisfy conditions of a concession; Section 125 provides for redemption fine; and Sections 114A and 114AA provide for penalties in the circumstances specified in those provisions.

Classification is determined by the goods’ identity and condition at importation, not by alleged post-import mixing.

The Tribunal found that the tank-specific loading log and ullage report consistently identified the disputed quantity as RBD Palmolein, and that the contemporaneous email and laboratory results corroborated, rather than independently formed the basis of, that conclusion.

The appellant produced no persuasive contemporaneous evidence to displace those records; delayed testing and the omitted notification explanation did not establish that the goods were CPO.

The Tribunal therefore upheld denial of the CPO concession.

It rejected the adjudicating authority’s reasoning that post-discharge mixing made the goods “Others,” but upheld Item 1511 9090 because the goods were RBD Palmolein at importation and were not CPO.

As the record did not establish which BCD rate applied on the relevant date, it directed verification and recomputation.

The material misdeclaration supported the extended-period demand and confiscation; the redemption fine was reduced, the Section 114A penalty was linked to the recomputed duty, and the separate Section 114AA penalty was set aside as duplicative and insufficiently supported by a distinct false document or declaration.

The findings that the disputed 2,304.029 MTs was not CPO, was ineligible for the concession and was classifiable under Item 1511 9090 were upheld; the adjudicating authority was directed to verify the applicable BCD rate and recompute duty and consequential interest.

Confiscation was upheld, redemption fine reduced from Rs. 2 crore to Rs. 1 crore, and the Section 114A penalty restricted to the recomputed duty.

The Section 114AA penalty of Rs. 35 lakh was set aside.

Amounts deposited were to be appropriated only against sums finally payable, with any excess refunded with applicable interest.