Case Details: Noya Infrastructure LLP vs. Union of India (2025) 37 Centax 338 (Guj.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- A.S. Supehia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
- S/Shri S N Soparkar, Sr. Adv., Mihir Joshi, Kunal Nanavati, Amir S Pathan, Virat G Popat & Kaustubh Shrivastava, for the Petitioner.
- S/Shri Pradip D Bhate, Anurag Oza, SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL & CB Gupta, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, a trader in industrial oil, imported goods declaring them as Distillate Oil under Customs Tariff Heading 2710, which were detained on allegation of mis-declaration on the basis that the sample did not meet IS 16731:2019. It was submitted that the Central Revenues Control Laboratory found deviation only in cloud point while other tested parameters were satisfied, and merely observed non-definitive diesel-fraction characteristics, with IS 1460 being noted in only one sample despite the cargo not being automotive diesel, and that mis-declaration was not established. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.
High Court Held
The High Court held that the test report did not conclusively establish the goods to be diesel and that reliance on cloud point alone was insufficient when other parameters stood satisfied. It held that the authorities had travelled beyond the findings of the Central Revenues Control Laboratory and that, in the presence of ambiguity, classification was required to be determined by applying the ‘most akin’ test. It was accordingly held that the goods were classifiable as Distillate Oil under Heading 2710 and that detention and seizure under section 12 read with section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 were unsustainable.
List of Cases Cited
- Gastrade International v. Commissioner — (2025) 29 Centax 8 (S.C.) = 2025 (392) E.L.T. 529 (S.C.) — Referred [Para 6, 10, 19, 20, 23, 24]
