2017 (8) TMI 89 - AT - Customs

Exemption under N/N. 04/2006-CE dt. 01/03/2006 / Circular No.332/1/2012 dt. 17/02/2012 - import of Manganese ore falling under CTH 2602 of the Customs Tariff Act - Customs authorities took a view that the goods imported are not ore but concentrate and hence will not be eligible for the said notifications - whether the goods which are imported by all the appellants are to be classified as Manganese ore or Manganese concentrate? - Held that - on specific query from the Bench, as to whether any samples were drawn by the customs authorities to test the same at CRCL or customs laboratories, both sides categorically stated that no samples were drawn and no analysis was done on the imported goods. In absence of any acceptable evidence that the imported goods were not ore but concentrate, we find that the lower authorities have not shifted the burden of proof on to the appellants. It is the claim of importers/appellants herein that they have imported ore and it is the case of the Revenue that the imported ore is nothing but concentrate, in order to classify the product under concentrate, it is expected out of the Revenue authorities to adduce some evidence that the said products were concentrate merely relying on the interpretation of HSN explanatory notes will not suffice to shift the burden of proof on to importer appellants. In the absence of any such evidence, we have to hold that the Revenues case fails. Concentrate term will apply to ore which have had part or all of the foreign matter removed by special treatments. In all these cases in hand, Revenue has not able to bring on record or state categorically that the Manganese ore which is imported by these appellants has undergone special treatmentsto hold the goods as concentrate. In the absence of anything to indicate that the goods which are imported were in fact put through special treatments, Revenue cannot take their case any further. The impugned orders are set aside and the appeals are allowed holding that the goods imported by the appellants are nothing but Manganese oreand eligible for exemption of CVD under relevant notification - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Classification of imported goods as Manganese ore or Manganese concentrate.
2. Eligibility for exemption from additional duty of customs under Notification No.04/2006-CE.
3. Burden of proof regarding the classification of goods.
4. Admissibility and necessity of scientific tests to determine the nature of imported goods.
5. Reliance on HSN explanatory notes and chapter notes for classification.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods as Manganese Ore or Manganese Concentrate:

The central issue in these appeals is whether the imported goods should be classified as Manganese ore or Manganese concentrate. The customs authorities argued that the goods were concentrate and not ore, relying on the HSN explanatory notes to Chapter 26, which state that ores are seldom marketed before preparation for subsequent metallurgical operations and that the term "concentrate" applies to ores that have had part or all of the foreign matter removed by special treatments. The appellants contended that the imported goods were Manganese ore, as certified by foreign suppliers and supported by load port certificates and analysis reports.

2. Eligibility for Exemption from Additional Duty of Customs under Notification No.04/2006-CE:

The appellants sought exemption from additional duty of customs under Notification No.04/2006-CE, which exempts ores falling under chapter headings 26.01 to 26.17 from payment of additional customs duty. The customs authorities denied this exemption, classifying the goods as concentrate. The Tribunal found that the lower authorities erred in their conclusion, as they did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the goods were concentrate.

3. Burden of Proof Regarding the Classification of Goods:

The Tribunal emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the customs authorities to prove that the imported goods are concentrate. The appellants had declared the goods as Manganese ore and provided supporting documents. The customs authorities failed to draw samples or conduct tests to substantiate their claim that the goods were concentrate. The Tribunal held that mere reliance on the HSN explanatory notes without concrete evidence was insufficient to shift the burden of proof onto the appellants.

4. Admissibility and Necessity of Scientific Tests to Determine the Nature of Imported Goods:

The appellants argued that no scientific tests were conducted on the imported goods to determine whether they were ore or concentrate. The Tribunal noted that prior to the amendment of Chapter 26 in 2011, the customs authorities used to send samples to the Department of Geology, Andhra Pradesh University, for analysis. However, this practice was not followed post-amendment. The Tribunal criticized the customs authorities for not drawing samples or conducting tests, thereby failing to provide any acceptable evidence to support their classification of the goods as concentrate.

5. Reliance on HSN Explanatory Notes and Chapter Notes for Classification:

The customs authorities relied on the HSN explanatory notes and chapter notes to classify the goods as concentrate. The Tribunal found that the reliance on these notes was misplaced without concrete evidence of special treatments being applied to the imported goods. The Tribunal referred to a similar case, Classic Microtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC, Ahmedabad, where it was held that the burden of proof lies with the Revenue to prove that the goods have undergone special treatment to be classified as concentrate.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the customs authorities failed to provide sufficient evidence to classify the imported goods as Manganese concentrate. The appeals were allowed, and the impugned orders were set aside. The Tribunal held that the goods imported by the appellants were Manganese ore and eligible for exemption from additional duty of customs under Notification No.04/2006-CE. The appeals were allowed with consequential reliefs, if any.