2016 (12) TMI 12 - AT - Customs

Valuation - import of tin prime stock lot - if the goods can be treated as prime product or defective? - Held that - It is seen that no reasonable explanation has been given to discard the letter of the assayer produced by the appellant. What is the prime quality product and what is the defective products have not been stated. It is seen that the appellant had in the defence stated that they have sold part consignment of the said goods to M/s. Eagle Metal Printers Pvt. Ltd., on highseas basis and the same has been cleared on prime stock lot by the admission on the part of the importer that the goods are anything other than prime product. We find that the Revenue has failed to discharge the onus to prove or otherwise - appeal allowed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods as prime or defective, reliance on appraiser's report, validity of letter from assayers, burden of proof on Revenue.

Analysis:
1. Classification of Goods: The case involved the classification of imported tin prime stock lot as either prime or defective. The shed appraiser's report highlighted water marks and rolling defects on the goods, leading to the Additional Commissioner classifying them as defective tin plates. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this classification, emphasizing that the goods were found to be defective upon examination, despite the appellant's claim that the goods were prime. The appellant presented a letter from an assayer to support their claim, but the Commissioner deemed it confusing and emphasized the importance of the actual examination at the docks.

2. Burden of Proof: The Tribunal found that the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proof to establish that the imported goods were indeed defective. The appellant's argument that they had sold part of the consignment as prime stock lot to another party further weakened the Revenue's case. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's reliance on the letter from the assayer was not adequately challenged or refuted by the Revenue, indicating a lack of reasonable explanation to discredit the letter's validity.

3. Decision: Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, indicating that the Revenue had not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the imported goods were defective as classified. The lack of a clear explanation on what constituted prime quality products versus defective ones further supported the Tribunal's decision to overturn the lower authorities' classification. The judgment highlighted the importance of meeting the burden of proof in such cases and emphasized the significance of actual examination results over conflicting documents like the letter from the assayer.