2008 (7) TMI 166 - AT - Customs

Appellants imported what was declared as Sulphonated Fish Oil and classified under Heading 34.02 - samples which were sent to the departmental laboratory were drawn by Customs officers in the presence of the assessee - classification of the item in question shall stand governed by the Chemical Examiner s report and the Chief Chemist s opinion - held that item to be a preparation classifiable u/h 34.03, not as Sulphonated Fish Oil u/h 34.02 assessee s appeals are dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Heading 34.02 or 34.03 of the Tariff Schedule based on chemical analysis reports and expert opinions.

Analysis:
The appellants imported goods declared as 'Sulphonated Fish Oil' under Heading 34.02 of the Customs Tariff Act, seeking concessional duty under Customs Notification No. 16/2000. The Chemical Examiner's report indicated the samples were Sulphonated Fatty Oil, not Sulphonated Fish Oil. A subsequent analysis by CRCL confirmed the goods were similar to those under Heading 34.03, suitable for fat liquoring only. The appellants provided contra reports from CLRI and S.G.S. India Ltd., certifying the goods as Sulphonated Fish Oil. However, lower authorities upheld the original classification under Heading 34.03, attracting higher duty, rejecting the contrary expert opinions.

The appellants argued that the Department should have relied on the majority opinion of technical experts certifying the goods as 'Sulphonated Fish Oil.' They also contended that a previous test report classified identical goods as Sulphonated Fish Oil, thus the second test was unnecessary. Citing legal precedents, the appellants urged the Tribunal to consider the expert opinions in their favor. However, the Tribunal rejected these arguments, emphasizing that the appellants themselves requested the retest by CRCL, and failed to provide crucial evidence supporting their claims.

The Tribunal highlighted the technical criteria for classifying goods as 'Sulphonated Fish Oil' under Heading 34.02, emphasizing the necessity of meeting specific chemical standards. The Chemical Examiner and CRCL's reports were deemed reliable, as they followed the prescribed testing procedures. Contrary reports obtained by the appellants without Departmental oversight were deemed insufficient to challenge the official findings. Legal precedents were cited to clarify that conflicting expert opinions outside the Department's domain do not supersede official test results. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the classification under Heading 34.03 based on the Chemical Examiner's report and Chief Chemist's opinion, dismissing the appeals and sustaining the higher duty classification.