1990 (10) TMI 185 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods under the appropriate tariff heading.
2. Applicability of Customs Notification No. 136/86.
3. Reliability of test reports from different laboratories.
4. Issuance of a speaking order by the lower authorities.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The primary issue was whether the imported goods, described as 'Instant adhesive' (Synthetic Adhesive Binders), should be classified under Chapter 35 or Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act (CTA). The Revenue argued that the goods were aqueous emulsions of synthetic resin, polyvinyl acetate, and should be classified under heading 3905.11 of CTA as polymers of vinyl acetate in aqueous dispersion. They cited the Chief Chemist's report which stated, "The samples are aqueous emulsions of synthetic resin, polyvinyl acetate... these emulsions merit classification only under Chapter 39."

The respondents contended that the goods were prepared adhesives and should be classified under heading 3506.10/3506.91 of CTA. They presented a test report from M/s. Italab (P) Ltd., which indicated the presence of polyvinyl acetate, polyvinyl alcohol, plasticisers, and inorganic fillers, suggesting the goods were prepared adhesives. The Collector upheld this classification, noting the addition of polyvinyl alcohol and plasticisers to polyvinyl acetate made the product an effective adhesive. The Collector also referenced technical literature supporting the classification of polyvinyl acetate-based adhesives under Chapter 35.

2. Applicability of Customs Notification No. 136/86:
The respondents argued that the lower authorities denied them the benefit of Customs Notification No. 136/86, which provided a lower duty rate for prepared glues. They claimed the goods should be classified under heading 3506.91 of CTA and 3501 CET, making them eligible for the notification's benefits. The Collector agreed, stating the goods were prepared adhesives and thus qualified for the notification. He criticized the lower authorities for not issuing a speaking order explaining the denial of this benefit.

3. Reliability of Test Reports:
The Revenue challenged the reliability of the test report from M/s. Italab (P) Ltd., arguing it was less reliable than the Central Revenue Control Laboratory's report. They claimed the sample tested by M/s. Italab was not representative and was not drawn in the presence of Customs officials. The Collector, however, accepted the Italab report as authentic, noting the Department did not contest its detailed analysis. He observed that the Customs laboratory lacked the equipment to test for small amounts of polyvinyl alcohol and plasticisers, which supported the Italab report's findings.

4. Issuance of a Speaking Order:
The respondents highlighted that the lower authorities did not issue a speaking order detailing the reasons for denying the benefit of Customs Notification No. 136/86. This omission prevented them from appealing the decision effectively. The Collector criticized the lower authorities for this failure, noting the respondents' repeated requests for a speaking order were ignored. He emphasized the importance of issuing a speaking order to provide transparency and allow for proper judicial review.

Conclusion:
The Collector's decision to classify the goods under heading 3506.10/3506.91 of CTA was upheld. The goods were deemed eligible for the benefits of Customs Notification No. 136/86. The test report from M/s. Italab (P) Ltd. was accepted as reliable, and the lower authorities were criticized for not issuing a speaking order. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, affirming the Collector's order.