2009 (7) TMI 380 - AT - Customs

Glass beads classification based on testing of samples impugned order holding that 8 glass beads not classifiable as glass micro as they were not tested - Revenue submits that the appellant was quite aware at the time of import that they are importing 20 MT of glass beads of ten grades. When the department took sample, the appellant did not suggest the department to take samples of all grades - Record clearly demonstrates that each grade submitted itself for classification under respective class when they were different grades of glass beads imported. The respondent should have guided revenue to take sample of each grade for appropriate conclusion. But the respondent kept quite. The case throws light that the respondent was aware of the technicalities. But for the silence of the respondent for a fair trial, the respondent deserves to be dealt in the manner dealt by the order-in-original. Appeal is allowed

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods based on testing of different grades of glass beads.

In this case, the main issue revolves around the classification of imported goods, specifically 20 metric tons of glass beads of ten different grades. The appellant imported these goods, and when the department took samples for testing, only some grades were tested while eight grades remained untested. The Commissioner (Appeals) granted the benefit of doubt to the appellant, stating that since eight grades were not tested, the appellant cannot be held liable under a different classification for those untested grades. However, the Tribunal found that this conclusion lacked sufficient evidence to support it. The Revenue's grievance was against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and sought a reversal of that decision.

The appellant's counsel argued that the Commissioner's decision was correct as the untested grades should not be classified based on the results of other tested grades. It was highlighted that as a first-time importer, the technicalities might not have been fully understood by the appellant. The counsel contended that the first appellate order did not warrant any interference.

After hearing both sides and examining the record, the Tribunal observed that each grade of glass beads presented itself for classification under different classes upon import. It was noted that the appellant should have directed the revenue authorities to sample each grade for a more accurate classification. However, the appellant remained silent on this matter. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant's silence and lack of cooperation hindered a fair trial, indicating awareness of the technicalities involved. As a result, the Tribunal decided to reverse the relief granted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and reinstated the original adjudication order.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision focused on the importance of proper testing and classification of imported goods, emphasizing the need for cooperation and transparency from importers to ensure a fair assessment. The judgment underscored the significance of providing accurate information and facilitating the testing process to avoid misclassification and ensure compliance with the applicable laws and regulations.