The Chennai Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT ) has held that Use of r-DNA Technology in Manufacturing of Diabetes Insulin Amounts to A Mono Component Insulin and allowed the customs duty exemption.
Novo Nordisk India Pvt. Ltd., the respondent/assessee has been importing the products viz., Insulatard, Mixtard and Actrapid which are human insulin and Novomix, NovoRapid, Levemir, Ryzodeg and Tresiba which are insulin analogues by classifying the same under HSN 30043110.
Commercial Contracts by R Kumar, Click here
The respondent has been filing Bills of Entry claiming exemption from payment of customs duty and CVD with SAD/IGST under Notification No. 12/2012 – Cus. dated 17.03.2012 [Sl. No. 148] and Sl. No. 167 r/w. entry No. 63 of List 4 of Notification No. 50/2017 – Cus. dated 30.06.2017, for the goods.
One consignment of insulin declared as monocomponent insulin vide Bill of Entry dated October 26, 2016 was intercepted by the SIIB, Custom House, Chennai. The assessee self-assessed the goods under Customs Tariff Item 3004 3110 to ‘NIL’ duty by way of claiming the above exemptions. Basis the investigation, the Respondent-assessee was issued with a SCN dated February 23, 2018 wherein the main allegation was that the goods imported by the them did not qualify to be “monocomponent insulins”.
A demand of Rs. 1,67,43,49,227 was proposed invoking the extended period of limitation under the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, as the benefit of Notification/s claimed by the respondent was allegedly not available to them.
Commercial Contracts by R Kumar, Click here
The Adjudicating Authority concluded that there is no definition for “Monocomponent” either in HSN Explanatory Notes, Customs Tariff, or the Notification. As per expert opinion, the Goods are mono-component insulin and are hence, classifiable under tariff entry 30043110. The assessee has rightly availed benefit under Sl.No. 114 of Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012. The products imported by assessee are developed using r-DNA technology and hence devoid of High Molecular Weight Protein (HMWP).
The non-mention of the term Mono-component in the product label or marketing literature in Nordic countries do not conclusively prove the case of the department. It was concluded that the declaration contained in the bill of entry, packages and leaflets is correct.
The assessee contended that the assessee imports Insulin products from NNAS, Denmark by claiming Customs duty exemption. The department argued that the term ‘monocomponent insulin’ refers to insulin extracted from animal pancreas that has been purified using Chromatographic techniques to reduce PRO–insulin. Insulin from animal source and r–DNA source could be differentiated based on material, process of manufacture/purification and nature of precursor; and only the insulin obtained from animal source could be considered as ‘monocomponent insulin’.
Commercial Contracts by R Kumar, Click here
The tribunal while dismissing the appeal of the department upheld the order of the authority stating that the classification of the impugned goods as ‘mono-component insulin’ is a content based classification and certainly not a source based classification, as in the case of porcine and bovine insulin and hence, insulin manufactured using r-DNA technology would qualify as a mono component insulin, and hence, was entitled to the benefit of exemption under the Notification/s in question.
S. Subramanian appeared for the appellant and G. Shivadass appeared for the respondent.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
