2012 (7) TMI 201 - AT - Customs

Alleged wrong classification and wrong availment of benefit of Notification - Lichi juice imported by assessee contended not to be fruit drinks - Held that - It is undisputed that appellants have declared the goods as Lichi Juice, which has been declared in Packing list, and confirmed by Test report. Commissioner(appeals) has brushed aside the test report only on the ground that it does not confirm to the standard of PFA Rules, 1955. Revenue sought to classify the product on the basis of the ingredients declared on the bottle and on the ground that the goods are known in the market as per the contents mentioned on the bottle. However, no evidence has been produced by the department that these goods were sold as other than fruit juice. Also, department has not challenged the test report of the Regional Food Laboratory. In these circumstances the same is set aside with consequential relief - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of imported goods as Lichi Juice under Notification 5/97 dated 10.08.1999 for concessional duty rate.

Analysis:
The appellant imported goods declared as Lichi Juice under bills of entry and claimed classification under 200980.90 with exemption under Notification 5/97 dated 10.08.1999 for import from SAPTA countries. The department initiated proceedings, alleging the goods were not fruit drinks as declared. Samples tested by the Regional Food Laboratory confirmed the goods as Lichi Juice. The lower authorities upheld the demand against the appellant. The appellant contended that the test report clearly identified the goods as Lichi Juice, and the department did not challenge the report. The authorities relied on the ingredients declared on the bottle and market perception without evidence of the goods being sold as other than fruit juice.

The appellant's argument focused on the Regional Food Laboratory's test report confirming the goods as Lichi Juice, which the department did not challenge. The lower authorities based their decision on the ingredients declared on the bottle and market perception, but failed to provide evidence of the goods being sold as anything other than fruit juice. The Tribunal found the appellant's classification and declaration consistent with the test report's findings, setting aside the lower authorities' decision for lack of sustainable evidence or challenge to the test report. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, providing consequential relief as per law.

This judgment highlights the importance of relying on concrete evidence, such as test reports, in classification disputes. It emphasizes the need for authorities to substantiate their claims with factual evidence rather than assumptions based on packaging or market perception. The decision underscores the significance of adherence to established procedures and the burden of proof in customs classification matters, ensuring fair treatment for importers based on verifiable data and reports.