##PAGE1##

1

Appeal No. C/2352 & 2353/2012

& C/30093 & 30094/2018

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

HYDERABAD

REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. – I

Customs Appeal No. 2352 of 2012

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.21/2012 (H-II) Cus dated 31.03.2012 passed by

Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-II), Hyderabad)

M/s Jasmine Biotechnologies .. APPELLANT

1-39/A,

Beside Dholari Dhani,

Kompally,

Ranga Reddy District

Telangana – 500 010.

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT

Hyderabad - Customs

Kendriya Shulk Bhavan,

Opp L.B. Stadium,

Basheerbagh,

Hyderabad,

Telangana – 500 004.

WITH

Customs Appeal No. 2353 of 2012

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.22/2012 (H-II) Cus dated 31.03.2012 passed by

Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-II), Hyderabad)

Shri K. Ravinder .. APPELLANT

1-39/A,

Beside Dholari Dhani,

Kompally,

Ranga Reddy District

Telangana – 500 010.

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT

Hyderabad - Customs

Kendriya Shulk Bhavan,

Opp L.B. Stadium,

Basheerbagh,

Hyderabad,

Telangana – 500 004.

WITH

Customs Appeal No. 30093 of 2018

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.HYD-CUS-000-APP-093-095-17-18 dated 24.10.2017

passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-II), Hyderabad)

M/s Jasmine Biotechnologies .. APPELLANT

1-39/A,

Beside Dholari Dhani,

Kompally,

Ranga Reddy District

Telangana – 500 010.

2

Appeal No. C/2352 & 2353/2012

& C/30093 & 30094/2018

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT

Hyderabad - Customs

Kendriya Shulk Bhavan,

Opp L.B. Stadium,

Basheerbagh,

Hyderabad,

Telangana – 500 004.

AND

Customs Appeal No. 30094 of 2018

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-CUS-000-APP-093-095-17-18 dated 24.10.2017

passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax (Appeals-II), Hyderabad)

Shri K. Ravinder .. APPELLANT

1-39/A,

Beside Dholari Dhani,

Kompally,

Ranga Reddy District

Telangana – 500 010.

VERSUS

Commissioner of Customs .. RESPONDENT

Hyderabad - Customs

Kendriya Shulk Bhavan,

Opp L.B. Stadium,

Basheerbagh,

Hyderabad,

Telangana – 500 004.

APPEARANCE:

Shri G. Natarajan, Advocate for the Appellant.

Shri M. Anukathir Surya, Authorized Representative for the Respondent.

CORAM: HON’BLE Mr. A.K. JYOTISHI, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

HON’BLE Mr. ANGAD PRASAD, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

FINAL ORDER No. A/30288-30291/2026

Date of Hearing: 13.04.2026

Date of Decision: 15.05.2026

[ORDER PER: ANGAD PRASAD]

The appellant M/s Jasmine Technologies and Proprietor Shri K. Ravinder

have filed these appeals. Appeal Nos. C/2352-2353/2012 are filed against the

Order-in-Appeal No. 21 & 22/2012 (H-II) dated 31.03.2012 and appeal nos.

C/30093-30094/2018 filed against the Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-000-

3

Appeal No. C/2352 & 2353/2012

& C/30093 & 30094/2018

APP-093-095/17-18 dated 24.10.2017, whereby, the imported goods declared

as “Kingbo K Bio-Fertilizers/exodus” plant protector, where, they classified as

insecticides under Customs Tariff Heading 3808 9199, confiscated under

Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalties were

imposed upon the appellants under Section 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs

Act 1962.

2. Since, all the appeals arouse out of common investigation, common facts

and identical issues, the same are being disposed of by this common order.

3. The fact, in brief, is that the appellant M/s Jasmine Bio-technologies

imported products from M/s Beijing Kingbo Biotech Co., Ltd., China declaring

the same as “Bio-Fertiliser” under Chapter Heading 3101 0099. The

Department entertained a view that the imported goods were in fact

insecticides containing “Oxymatrin” and therefore classifiable under Chapter 38

as insecticides requiring registration under the Insecticides Act, 1968. Samples

were drawn and sent to RCOF, Bangalore and IICT, Hyderabad for testing. The

reports indicated presence of compounds namely Matrin, Oxymatrin,

Dehydromatrin and Dehydrooxymatrin. On the basis of the said reports,

proceedings were initiated alleging mis-declartion, suppression and violation of

the Insecticides Act 1968.

4. The Adjudic