1985 (9) TMI 199 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported coconut oil as refined or unrefined.
2. Eligibility for duty exemption under Notification No. 33/63.
3. Validity of the Chemical Examiner's report.
4. Burden of proof for claiming exemption.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Coconut Oil as Refined or Unrefined:
The appellants imported a consignment of coconut oil described as "white coconut oil, unrefined." The Assistant Collector of Customs, based on a chemical test, classified the oil as refined, thus liable for additional duty. The appellants contested this classification, presenting various documents, including the supplier's invoice, bill of lading, and certificates from the Port Health Officer and suppliers, all indicating the oil was unrefined. The department relied solely on the Chemical Examiner's report, which noted the acid value within the limit for refined oil but admitted the inability to determine bleaching through chemical tests. The Tribunal found the evidence from the appellants more credible, noting the Chemical Examiner's report was merely an opinion without a solid foundation.

2. Eligibility for Duty Exemption under Notification No. 33/63:
Notification No. 33/63 exempts all sorts of Vegetable Non-Essential Oils (V.N.E. oils) other than processed V.N.E. oils. The appellants argued that their imported oil did not qualify as "processed" under the notification. The Tribunal referred to previous cases, including the Godrej Soap case, where it was established that good quality raw coconut oil could be very low in fatty acid content and water-white without being processed. The Tribunal concluded that the imported oil was unprocessed and thus eligible for the duty exemption.

3. Validity of the Chemical Examiner's Report:
The Chemical Examiner's report indicated the oil could be considered processed based on the acid value but acknowledged the inability to detect bleaching. The Tribunal cited the Gujarat High Court decision in Steadfast Paper Mills, which held that the Chemical Examiner should only provide test results, not opinions on tariff classification. The Tribunal found the report insufficient to classify the oil as processed, especially in light of the comprehensive evidence provided by the appellants.

4. Burden of Proof for Claiming Exemption:
The Departmental Representative argued that the onus was on the importer to prove eligibility for the exemption. The Tribunal noted that the appellants had provided substantial evidence, including certificates and analysis reports, supporting their claim. The Tribunal emphasized that in the absence of contrary evidence from the department, the benefit of doubt should go to the appellants, as established in previous rulings and the Central Government's quasi-judicial order.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal held that the imported coconut oil was unprocessed and eligible for the duty exemption under Notification No. 33/63. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal allowed, reaffirming the principle that quality control standards (like IS specifications) are not decisive for tariff classifications.