1998 (1) TMI 243 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Dispute over the weight of ball bearings imported by the appellant.
2. Assessment of duty based on the weight of the bearings.
3. Customs authorities' reliance on weight from catalogue and packing list.
4. Appellant's argument regarding the weight of the bearings.
5. Decision on duty rate and additional sum payable.
6. Burden of proof on the appellant regarding passing on the duty burden to customers.
7. Consideration of refund claim and evidence requirement.

Analysis:
The appellate tribunal addressed a controversy concerning the weight of ball bearings imported by the appellant. The duty liability was contingent on whether the weight was below 633 gms, triggering a duty rate of 150% ad valorem as per a specific notification. The authorities initially assessed the duty based on a weight of 635 gms per bearing, leading to the imposition of duty at a higher rate. However, the appellant's representative argued that a customs weight check found the disputed bearings to be 630 gms, which would exempt them from the additional duty charge.

The tribunal emphasized that the weight determined by the customs authorities, a crucial factor in assessing goods, should prevail over catalogues or packing lists. It noted that if there were doubts about weight uniformity, the authorities could have extended their checks to all imported bearings. Since this was not done, the tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, requiring them to pay only the lower duty rate and not the additional sum per bearing initially charged.

Regarding the burden of proof on the appellant to show they did not pass on the higher duty burden to customers, the tribunal considered the appellant's submission that they did not collect the refundable sum from their buyers. The tribunal directed the authorities to assess this aspect while implementing the order, emphasizing the need for evidence from the appellant regarding the passing on of the duty burden to customers within a specified timeframe for granting the refund.

In conclusion, the tribunal allowed the appeal, granting relief to the appellant by reducing the duty liability and directing a review of the burden passing issue for refund consideration. The judgment underscores the importance of customs weight checks in duty assessment and the burden of proof on importers regarding duty pass-through to customers.