2016 (5) TMI 987 - AT - Customs

Classification - Goods exported under EPCG Licence Scheme - Whether to be declared as Marble Blocks as per appellants or Silcified Limestone as per revenue - Held that - the Geological Survey of India report reflects upon the goods to be limestone, which is nothing but marble. The said report is not available on record in as much as the same was not handed over to the assessee. We are not aware as to what were the questions put to Geological Survey of India at the time of sending all the samples. There being admittedly another report on record holding the goods to be marble and GSI s report not clearly saying that the goods were not marble, therefore the goods have to be held as marble. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief

Summary

Issues:
1. Nature of goods exported under EPCG Licence Scheme - Marble Blocks or Silcified Limestone.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellants were given import licenses under the EPCG Scheme for machinery import, with an obligation to export Marble Blocks. However, Custom officers at the export location viewed the exported goods as not Marble Blocks but Silcified Limestone, leading to provisional free exports.
2. Samples were sent for testing, and the Geological Survey of India reported the goods as Silcified Limestone. The appellants argued that Marble and Limestone have similar chemical compositions, and the goods were excavated from Marble mines under a lease agreement with the government, paying royalty for Marble.
3. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered two test reports - one finding the samples as altered ultra basic rock used as Marble, and the other by Geological Survey of India identifying them as Silcified Limestone based on chemical analysis. The appeal was rejected.
4. The dispute revolved around the goods' nature declared as Marble Blocks by the appellants but considered Silcified Limestone by the Revenue. The Tribunal examined definitions of Marble and Limestone, emphasizing the metamorphosis of limestone into Marble.
5. The Tribunal referred to the Indian Bureau of Mines' definition stating Marble as metamorphosed limestone, supporting the view that the goods being Silcified Limestone did not contradict the appellant's claim.
6. Another report opined the goods were Marble, considering factors like mining lease agreements, dead rent paid for Marble, export value realization, and government assessments supporting the goods as Marble.
7. The Tribunal highlighted the Tribunal decision in a similar case, emphasizing the similarity in chemical composition between Marble and Limestone and the metamorphic process. Considering the evidence and circumstances, the Tribunal concluded that the goods were Marble, overturning the Revenue's decision.

Overall, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, setting aside the impugned order and allowing the appeal with consequential relief.