2016 (11) TMI 901 - AT - Customs

Concessional rate of duty - benefit of N/N. 236/89-Cus. dated 1.9.1989 - import of empty 330 ml. aluminium can body - The appellant herein had produced opinion of Indian Institute of Packing, Mumbai, which was rejected and discarded by the first appellate authority on the ground that the opinion states the imported goods as semi-rigid and not collapsible. Since there was ambiguity, it was held that the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of Notification 236/89 - whether the stand that benefit of the Notification is not applicable to the goods as they were collapsible tubular container is justified? Held that - the lower authorities have overlooked the certificate given by the Department of Metallurgy, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, dated 23.12.2003 wherein it was certified that the Aluminium can samples are Rigid Cans - the opinion expressed by the expert needs to be considered and we have to hold that the goods imported by the appellant are not collapsible containers and hence eligible for exemption under Notification 236/89-Cus. - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Notification No.236/89-Cus for concessional rate of duty.
- Consideration of expert opinion in determining the nature of imported goods.
- Applicability of the exemption under the notification to the goods in question.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was against an order-in-appeal dated 27.7.2004 regarding the concessional rate of duty claimed by the appellant on the import of empty 330 ml. aluminium can body under Notification No.236/89-Cus. The lower authorities concluded that the goods were collapsible cans, making them ineligible for the duty exemption under the said notification. The appellant presented an opinion from the Indian Institute of Packing, Mumbai, which was disregarded by the first appellate authority due to ambiguity. However, the certificate from the Department of Metallurgy, Indian Institute of Science, certified the imported cans as "Rigid Cans," contradicting the earlier assessment of collapsible containers. The Tribunal noted that this expert opinion was crucial and had not been properly considered by the lower authorities, leading to the conclusion that the goods were not collapsible containers and, therefore, qualified for the exemption under Notification 236/89-Cus.

The key issue revolved around the correct interpretation of the notification and whether the imported goods fell within its scope. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of expert opinions in such cases and highlighted the oversight by the lower authorities in not giving due consideration to the certificate from the Department of Metallurgy. By relying on this expert assessment, the Tribunal determined that the goods were not collapsible containers, contrary to the earlier findings, and thus, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the duty exemption under the notification. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, favoring the appellant based on the expert opinion provided.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the application of Notification No.236/89-Cus concerning the concessional rate of duty for imported goods. It underscored the significance of expert opinions in determining the nature of goods and their eligibility for duty exemptions. The Tribunal's decision to consider the expert certificate from the Department of Metallurgy as conclusive evidence in favor of the appellant highlighted the need for thorough evaluation of expert assessments in customs matters to ensure fair and accurate adjudication.