2002 (9) TMI 739 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Liability to exemption under Notifications 35/90, 181/90, and 36/90 for imported goods.
2. Classification of imported goods as coke or semi coke.
3. Burden of proof for claiming exemption.
4. Comparison with exemption granted to other importers.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this appeal was the liability to exemption under various notifications for goods imported by the appellant. The notifications provided exemptions on basic duty of customs, auxiliary duty, and additional duty of customs for coke containing specific phosphorous content. The Collector concluded that the imported goods were semi coke, not entitled to the exemption.

2. The appellant argued that there is no technical or chemical distinction between coke and semi coke, only a commercial one. However, the Tribunal found that there is a clear distinction between the two based on the raw material and distillation process. The burden of proof for claiming exemption shifted to the appellant, who failed to provide conclusive evidence supporting their claim.

3. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of establishing eligibility for exemption, emphasizing that the burden of proof lies with the claimant. Despite references to technical publications and volatile matter content, the appellant could not prove that the imported material met the criteria for exemption as specified in the notifications.

4. The appellant also raised the issue of two other importers being granted exemption for similar material, suggesting they should receive the same benefit. However, the Tribunal noted that the mere granting of exemption to others does not automatically entitle the appellant to the same benefit. Lack of substantial evidence or technical characteristics supporting the claim led to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the denial of exemption to the appellant, emphasizing the need for clear evidence to support claims of eligibility. The decision highlighted the importance of meeting specific criteria outlined in exemption notifications and the burden of proof resting on the claimant to establish entitlement.