2003 (3) TMI 106 - SC - Customs

Whether the goods could be said to be regenerated second grade MMM? Held that - The burden of proof was on taxing authority to show that imported goods were not regenerated second grade MMM. Mere assertion by the department was of no avail as heavy burden was on the department to lay evidence that the test reports which were given by the Government Institutions were incorrect or erroneous. No such attempt was made and the test carried out before the Commissioner (Appeals) by IIT Expert revealed that the contention of the appellant was justified. An important fact overlooked by the Tribunal is that because of an earlier report of the CRCL with respect to the Delhi consignment to the effect that it was unable to test the samples for regenerated second grade MMM, the department had sent samples from the Delhi consignment to the IIT, Delhi and the IIT, Delhi vide its report dated 18-7-1996 had opined that the goods were of regenerated second grade quality. This report had been placed on record. The CEGAT accepted the fact that the goods forming part of the Delhi consignment were identical to the goods in question that is goods of the Ludhiana consignment. This IIT report left no scope to sustain the stand of the department. In our view the report obtained at the instance of the department itself had great force and it should not have been ignored. It is important to note that the report of the CRCL, New Delhi relied upon by the department does not unequivocally state that the goods were not regenerated second grade MMM. The report is carefully worded and gives an impression that something is sought to be concealed rather than truth being revealed. The onus is on the department to establish that it is a case of mis-declaration of goods. The department has miserably failed to discharge that onus in the present case. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the stand of the department. The impugned judgment of the CEGAT cannot be upheld. The same is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The order of the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar, is restored.

Summary

Issues:
Mis-declaration of goods under the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the quality of imported raw material for manufacturing acrylic sheets.

Analysis:
The appellant imported Methyl Methacrylate Monomer (MMM) second grade from Japan for manufacturing acrylic sheets. The Department alleged mis-declaration, claiming the goods were prime quality, not second grade, based on a CRCL test report. However, the CRCL's subsequent report was inconclusive, stating the samples did not meet second-grade standards. The appellant presented reports from IIT, Punjab Test House, and Gujarat State Fertilizers Co. Ltd., confirming the goods as second grade MMM.

The Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar, conducted a test with an IIT Professor, proving the goods were second grade MMM. Despite this, the CEGAT accepted the Department's appeal, disregarding the appellant's evidence. The Tribunal criticized the Commissioner's test, stating he lacked scientific expertise. However, the Supreme Court found the test valid, emphasizing that one need not be a scientist to understand expert reports.

The burden of proof lay with the Department to show the goods were not second grade MMM. The Court highlighted the importance of the IIT report, which confirmed the quality of goods in a similar Delhi consignment. The CRCL report lacked clarity, and the Department failed to prove mis-declaration. As a result, the Court set aside the CEGAT's decision, reinstating the Commissioner's order. The judgment emphasized the Department's failure to establish mis-declaration, leading to the appeal's allowance and parties bearing their own costs.