2011 (3) TMI 1277 - AT - Customs

Notification No. 26/2000 read with Notification No. 19/2000-Cus. (N.T.) benefit denied - Confiscation - Penalty - Classification - Held that - It is only visual examination by the visiting officer to say that the slabs were not completely polished and no technical or trade opinion obtained by the Revenue regarding the conditions of the slabs hence denial of benefit of Notification is not sustainable - goods in question are polished marble slabs and Appellants are entitled for the benefit of Notification - In favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Denial of benefit of Notification No. 26/2000 read with Notification No. 19/2000-Cus.
- Confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 1,32,11,273.11 and imposition of penalties.
- Allegation of imported marble slabs not being completely polished.
- Dispute over the final process of manufacture location.
- Interpretation of provisions of Notification No. 19/2000-Cus. (N.T.).
- Lack of expert opinion on the nature of the imported slabs.

Analysis:
The Appellant filed an appeal against the Commissioner of Customs' order confiscating goods worth Rs. 1,32,11,273.11, allowing redemption on payment of a fine, and imposing penalties. The dispute arose from the classification of imported marble slabs as rough marbles under Customs Tariff, denying the benefit of specific notifications. The Appellant imported marble slabs from Sri Lanka, claiming they were polished, but subsequent examination revealed incomplete polishing, leading to the issuance of a Show Cause Notice and the impugned order.

The Appellant argued that the marble slabs were imported from Oman to Sri Lanka as rough slabs, where they were polished before being imported into India. They contended that the final process of manufacture occurred in Sri Lanka, where machinery/equipment was available for polishing. The Revenue, however, claimed that as the slabs were not completely polished in Sri Lanka, the benefit of the Notification was rightly denied. The dispute centered on whether the final process of manufacture, i.e., polishing, should occur in the exporting country.

The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Notification No. 19/2000-Cus. (N.T.) and the evidence presented. It noted that the Revenue relied on visual examination and statements, lacking expert opinions on the nature of the slabs. The Tribunal found merit in the Appellant's argument that the slabs were indeed polished in Sri Lanka, as evidenced by the machinery available there and the lack of post-import polishing in India. The Tribunal also considered a previous High Court judgment that treated similar imports as polished marble, supporting the Appellant's claim. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the Appeals were allowed, emphasizing the lack of substantial evidence to deny the benefit of the Notification.