1982 (12) TMI 191 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Identification of the nature of grinding wheels imported by the appellants - whether made of synthetic abrasive grains or not.

Detailed Analysis:

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT New Delhi involved two appeals with identical issues concerning the classification of grinding wheels imported by the appellants. The central question was whether the grinding wheels were made of synthetic abrasive grains, which would result in a lower rate of duty under Item 71(12) of the Indian Customs Tariff. The appellants claimed to have provided a manufacturer's certificate stating the use of synthetic abrasive grains, which was disputed by the Assistant Collector. The Department's argument emphasized the reliance on printed catalogues and technical literature for verification, which the appellants failed to produce despite requests by the Appellate Collector.

Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that the onus was on the appellants to prove the nature of the imported grinding wheels. While the manufacturer's certificate was presented during the hearing, the appellants did not provide the requested catalogue, which was mentioned in the invoice. Despite being regular importers of grinding wheels, they did not make efforts to obtain another copy of the catalogue from the foreign manufacturer. The import documents described the goods simply as grinding wheels, lacking detailed information on the composition. The Tribunal requested collateral evidence like contracts, purchase orders, or correspondence to support the composition claim, but the appellants failed to provide any substantial evidence.

The Tribunal highlighted the appellants' lack of effort in producing essential documents or collateral evidence even after more than three years since the initial rejection of their appeals. Due to this default on the appellants' part, the Department's classification of the goods under Item 71(1) of the Indian Customs Tariff was deemed justified. Consequently, the Tribunal found no grounds to overturn the Orders-in-Appeal and dismissed both appeals as unsubstantiated.