2002 (8) TMI 361 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Classification of imported goods as cannulae or bare needles
- Admissibility of documentary evidence in determining the nature of imported goods
- Reliance on visual examination by Customs Appraiser versus expert opinion

Classification of Imported Goods: The appellants imported goods described as cannulae but were classified by the Customs Appraiser as bare hypodermic needles. The dispute arose as the authorities, including the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner (Appeals), held against the appellants, stating that the imported goods were bare needles, not cannulae. The appellants argued that they were engaged in manufacturing hypodermic needles and regularly imported disposable cannulae for this purpose. They presented a memo of understanding with their foreign supplier, stating the consignment was part of the agreement. The appellants contended that the authorities' decision was based solely on visual examination, lacking expert opinion. They emphasized that cannulae differ from needles as they require mounting on a plastic hub, sterilization, and packaging. Despite some acceptance of the goods as cannulae, the authorities doubted the actual identity due to the unavailability of the imported sample.

Admissibility of Documentary Evidence: The appellants supported their claim with various documents, such as the supplier's invoice, inspection certificates, and manufacturer's certification, all indicating the imported goods as cannulae. They highlighted that the memo of understanding and insurance documents also specified the goods as disposable cannulae. In contrast, the Revenue relied on the visual examination by the Customs Appraiser to classify the goods as bare needles. The tribunal noted the discrepancy between documentary evidence and visual examination, emphasizing the importance of documentary proof in determining the nature of imported goods.

Reliance on Visual Examination vs. Expert Opinion: The tribunal deliberated on the conflicting views regarding the classification of the goods. While the Customs Appraiser's visual examination led to the classification as bare needles, the appellants argued that needles require additional components to become needles, unlike cannulae. They contended that the Customs Appraiser's assessment lacked the expertise needed for such classification. The tribunal agreed with the appellants, stating that personal views cannot substitute expert opinion. Notably, the Revenue did not send samples for expert identification, further supporting the tribunal's decision to rely on the documentary evidence provided by the appellants. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the previous order and ruled in favor of the appellants, recognizing the imported goods as cannulae and granting them consequential relief.