2011 (5) TMI 793 - AT - Customs

DEPB claim - respondent filed four shipping bills under the DEPB claim - respondent declared the goods as Electronic Switching System . The Revenue was of the opinion that the goods are not electronic switching system but are Populated Circuit Boards (PCBs), hence the goods were provisionally assessed - Revenue has a doubt about the nature of the goods but no sample has been taken nor any expert opinion is obtained to find out whether the goods are PCB or electronic switching system - Held that - shipping bills were filed early as on 09/02/2001 and the adjudication order was passed on 18/10/2002, the Revenue has not initiated any process of getting expert opinion about the exact nature of the product being exported. The respondent produced the opinion by two different experts regarding nature of goods and we find no ground to reject the expert opinion, appeal is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods as Electronic Switching System or Populated Circuit Boards (PCBs).
2. Validity of technical opinion obtained by the respondent.
3. Failure of Revenue to obtain expert opinion on the nature of goods.

Classification of Goods:
The case involved a dispute over the classification of goods declared as 'Electronic Switching System' by the respondent, which the Revenue contended were actually Populated Circuit Boards (PCBs). Initially provisionally assessed, the goods were later finally assessed with DEPB benefit allowed for PCBs. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the respondent based on technical opinions supporting the goods as electronic switching systems. The Tribunal noted the absence of samples or expert opinions from the Revenue, contrasting with the respondent's submission of expert opinions from reputable institutions like IIT Powai and VJTI, Mumbai. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the lack of grounds to reject the expert opinions provided by the respondent.

Validity of Technical Opinion:
The Revenue challenged the technical opinion supporting the classification of goods as electronic switching systems, alleging that it was obtained without informing the Customs authorities and questioning the relevance of the expert letters provided by the exporter. Despite these objections, the Commissioner (Appeals) found in favor of the respondent, highlighting the early filing of shipping bills and the absence of any initiative by the Revenue to seek expert opinion during the adjudication period. The Tribunal concurred with the Commissioner, dismissing the Revenue's challenge and affirming the validity of the expert opinions submitted by the respondent.

Failure to Obtain Expert Opinion:
A significant issue raised was the failure of the Revenue to obtain expert opinion on the nature of the goods in question. The Tribunal noted that no samples were taken, and no expert opinion was sought by the Revenue to determine whether the goods were PCBs or electronic switching systems. In contrast, the respondent provided expert opinions from reputable institutions, which the Tribunal found to be credible and unchallenged. The Tribunal criticized the Revenue for not taking proactive steps to ascertain the nature of the goods during the adjudication period, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the appeal due to the lack of grounds to reject the expert opinions provided by the respondent.