2018 (2) TMI 749 - HC - Customs

EPCG Scheme - Whether the goods declared for export under EPCG Scheme as Marble Block, which were subsequently found as Silicified Limestone on the basis of GSI test report are to be treated as Marble Block ? - Held that - The man has taken license or mining lease from State of Rajasthan as a marble exporter but merely chemical test has given it limestone as discussed by the Tribunal by referring to meaning of Wikipedia the marble is also one kind of limestone - the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of goods declared for export under EPCG Scheme as Marble Block.
2. Justification of Tribunal's reliance on test reports for determining the nature of exported goods.
3. Application of previous legal judgments in similar cases to the present scenario.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the interpretation of goods declared for export under the EPCG Scheme as Marble Block, which were later identified as "Silicified Limestone" based on a GSI test report. The appellant questioned whether these goods should still be treated as "Marble Block" despite the discrepancy in the test results.

2. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal of the assessee was based on various observations. The Tribunal referred to the definition of Marble as a metamorphosed limestone and highlighted that the absence of a specific definition in the Customs Act necessitates considering other relevant circumstances. Additionally, the Tribunal considered reports from the Geological Survey of India and the Additional Director of Mines and Geology, Udaipur, which presented conflicting opinions on the nature of the goods. The Tribunal also noted that the goods were being excavated under a license for mining marble, and various supporting documents indicated that the goods were treated as marble throughout the export process.

3. The appellant argued that the Tribunal's observations were contrary to the record, emphasizing a certificate stating that the goods were an altered ultrabasic rock, neither sandstone nor marble. However, the Tribunal found merit in the evidence provided by the appellant, including the assessment order, pollution control consent, and customer interactions, all pointing towards the goods being considered and treated as marble. The Tribunal also drew parallels with a previous case to support its conclusion that the goods should be classified as marble based on physical characteristics and the process of metamorphism from limestone.

4. Ultimately, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, agreeing that the goods should be considered marble despite the chemical test results indicating limestone. The Court emphasized that the appellant, licensed as a marble exporter, had fulfilled the obligations under the EPCG Scheme, even if the goods were technically identified as limestone. The Court found no substantial question of law, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the judgment delves into the intricate details of the goods' classification under the EPCG Scheme, highlighting the significance of various reports, legal precedents, and contextual circumstances in determining the nature of the exported goods. The Court's decision underscores the practical implications and industry standards in such cases, ultimately affirming the Tribunal's ruling in favor of treating the goods as marble despite the technical discrepancies in the test reports.