1992 (4) TMI 122 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Classification of imported Miniature Angle Beam Probes under Heading 9806.00.
- Refund claim based on Notification No. 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987.
- Rejection of refund claim due to lack of manufacturer's catalogue.
- Burden of proof on the appellants to establish eligibility for concession.
- Interpretation of Notification No. 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987.
- Examination of technical details to determine the nature of the imported goods.

Classification and Refund Claim:
The appeal involved the classification of imported Miniature Angle Beam Probes under Heading 9806.00 and a refund claim based on Notification No. 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. The appellants imported the Probes against a specific bill of entry and sought a refund, arguing that the Probes should be assessed at a lower duty rate as parts of Ultrasonic Flaw Detectors. The claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector and the Collector (Appeals) due to the appellants' failure to provide the relevant manufacturer's catalogue to verify the nature of the imported goods.

Burden of Proof and Interpretation of Notification:
The Revenue contended that the burden to establish eligibility for the concession under Notification No. 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987 was on the appellants. The appellants were required to demonstrate that the Probes did not contain specific electronic components listed in the proviso to the Notification. The dispute centered on whether the Probes met the criteria outlined in the Notification, particularly regarding the absence of thermionic valves, transistors, semi-conductor devices, light emitting diodes, or electronic micro circuits.

Technical Examination and Decision:
In the absence of representation from the appellants during the hearing, the Tribunal examined technical details related to Ultrasonics and Ultrasonic Testing to determine the nature of the Miniature Angle Beam Probes. The Tribunal considered the functionality of Ultrasonic Flaw Detectors, the role of Probes in generating ultrasonic waves, and the methods of ultrasonic testing. Based on the technical analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the Probes, primarily serving as sources for ultrasonic waves, did not contain the specified electronic components, making them eligible for the concession under Notification No. 69/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987.

Decision and Relief:
Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting consequential relief to the appellants. The decision was based on the acceptance of the appellants' contention that the imported Probes did not incorporate the electronic components mentioned in the Notification, thus qualifying for the concessional duty rate.