2006 (6) TMI 294 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported fabric under Custom Tariff, Benefit of Notification No. 36/2003, Pre-deposit of duty waiver, Contradictory test reports from different laboratories, Cross-examination of experts denied.

Classification of Imported Fabric:
The applicant imported fabric claiming it to be non-texturised polyester filament under a specific Custom Tariff classification and sought the benefit of Notification No. 36/2003. However, the Revenue contended that the fabric was made of texturised polyester filament and should be classified differently. Disagreement arose due to conflicting test reports from various laboratories.

Pre-deposit of Duty Waiver:
The applicant sought a waiver of pre-deposit of duty amounting to Rs. 1,13,29,497 based on the argument that there were contradictory test reports regarding the nature of the fabric. The Tribunal found that the denial of cross-examination of experts was not justified in the presence of conflicting reports. Consequently, the Tribunal waived the pre-deposit of duty for the appeal hearing, indicating a strong case in favor of the applicant.

Cross-Examination of Experts Denied:
The Tribunal noted that the samples were tested by three different laboratories, resulting in conflicting reports. Despite the change in opinion by one laboratory upon Revenue's queries, the denial of cross-examination of experts was deemed unsustainable. The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of cross-examination in such circumstances and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after providing the appellant with an opportunity for cross-examination and hearing.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of cross-examination in cases involving contradictory test reports and upheld the applicant's request for a waiver of pre-deposit of duty based on the need for further examination and clarification. The decision to remand the matter for a fresh decision with the opportunity for cross-examination and hearing ensured procedural fairness and thorough consideration of the classification issue at hand.