2017 (7) TMI 321 - AT - Customs

N/N. 21/2002 - benefit of concessional rate of duty - metering pumps - Held that - No evidence has been adduced to demonstrate the fallacy in the submissions made before the assessing authority implying the lack of any controverting evidence. It is also clear from the records that neither of the two authorities had the benefit of any other expertise to reach their respective conclusions - appellant eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Import of metering gear pump for viscose at concessional rate of duty under notification no.21/2002 - Denial of benefit by Deputy Commissioner of Customs - Upholding of assessment by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - Challenge to machinery expert's opinion - Failure to provide expert opinion copies to the appellant - Lack of notice of intent to rely on expert opinion - Introduction of additional document - Classification of goods under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Use of pumps for viscose manufacturing process - Inclusion of pumps among metering devices - Lack of separate measuring device - Reliance on trade description - Failure to consider importer's expert opinion - Violation of principles of natural justice - Evidence supporting appellant's contentions - Lack of controverting evidence - Lack of expertise in authorities' conclusions - Reference to authoritative text - Setting aside of first appellate authority's order - Granting of benefit of concessional rate of duty to the appellant.

Analysis:
The case involves a dispute regarding the import of a metering gear pump for viscose by M/s Century Rayon, seeking a concessional rate of duty under notification no.21/2002. The provisional assessment was conducted due to pending expert opinion on similar imports by another entity. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs denied the concessional rate, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), leading to this appeal. The appellant contested the denial, arguing that the goods were classifiable under the Customs Tariff Act and challenging the reliance on the machinery expert's opinion without providing copies to the appellant.

The impugned order noted the manufacturing process of 'rayon filament yarn' by the appellant and the role of the metering pump in controlling denier by feeding viscose solution at specified speeds. The appellant claimed that the gear pumps for viscose were inclusive of metering devices, as per trade descriptions, and contested the dismissal of their expert opinion. The Tribunal highlighted the failure to consider the importer's expert opinion and the lack of notice regarding the intent to rely on the machinery expert's report, violating principles of natural justice.

The appellant submitted extracts from 'Man-Made Fibres' to support the necessity and function of the pump in the viscose manufacturing process. The equipment imported aimed to release a specified quantity of viscose solution for fiber creation, lacking a separate measuring device. The Tribunal found no evidence contradicting the appellant's submissions and noted the absence of expertise in the authorities' conclusions. Relying on the authoritative text and lack of material supporting the Revenue's contentions, the Tribunal set aside the first appellate authority's order, granting the appellant the benefit of concessional rate of duty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding the appellant eligible for the concessional rate of duty, emphasizing the importance of providing notice and evidence to the assessee and considering authoritative texts in decision-making.