2004 (2) TMI 591 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order of Commissioner regarding duty demands and penalties on capital goods.
2. Dispute over classification of imported goods as "synthetic waste" for duty-free clearance.
3. Reliability of test reports from different laboratories in determining nature of imported goods.
4. Burden of proof on Customs department regarding classification of goods.
5. Application of duty exemption under Pass Book Scheme.

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed against the Commissioner's order confirming duty demands and penalties on capital goods. The Revenue also filed a cross-appeal seeking value enhancement and higher duty collection based on the same order.

2. The dispute revolved around the classification of imported goods as "synthetic waste" eligible for duty-free clearance under the Import Export Pass Book. However, the goods were found to be acrylic fiber instead of synthetic waste, leading to duty demands, confiscation, and penalties.

3. Various laboratories provided conflicting test reports on the nature of the imported goods. While the Deputy Chief Chemist's report formed the basis for show cause notices, reports from other laboratories indicated the goods as waste material. Despite multiple confirmations of the goods being waste, the Commissioner relied on the CRCL, New Delhi's report, ignoring other laboratory findings.

4. The burden of proof lay on the Customs department to establish that the imported goods were not synthetic waste but of good quality. However, the predominant findings from independent laboratories and the Madras Revenue Control Laboratory suggested that the goods were waste material, casting doubt on the Commissioner's classification.

5. The Tribunal held that there was no justification for subjecting the imported goods to duty, as they were eligible for duty exemption under the Pass Book Scheme as synthetic waste. Consequently, the appeals by the party and other appellants were allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The Revenue's cross-appeal was dismissed as the goods were deemed eligible for duty exemption, rendering the proposed duty rate and value of prime quality material irrelevant.