Burden of proving white card board classification failed, so exemption denial, confiscation and penalty could not stand.

Where eligibility under the DEEC scheme and Notification No. 79/95 turned on whether the imported board was white card board, the Revenue had to prove that classification with reliable technical and trade evidence. The record was equivocal: the lab material, expert cross-examination, and common-parlance evidence did not establish that the goods were white card board, and no market enquiry or trade evidence was produced. On that basis, the sensitive-item restriction was not proved to apply, so denial of exemption, confiscation, and penalty could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported board was "white card board" so as to fall within the sensitive-item restriction under the DEEC scheme and the exemption under Notification No. 79/95, and whether the demand, confiscation and penalty could therefore be sustained.

Analysis: The imported goods were described in the bill of entry as paper board with one side coated and Manila back. The record contained conflicting technical material: the initial laboratory report indicated that the goods could be considered card board other than white card board and ivory board, while the later clarification and the licensing authority's view suggested white card board. The Court noted that the Revenue did not adduce market evidence, trade enquiry, or evidence of common parlance to establish what the goods were known as in trade. The cross-examination of the Deputy Chief Chemist stated that white card board would have to be white on both sides and that the samples were not so; the Principal Investigator also stated that the goods were known in common parlance as chromo board and that there was no specific technical definition of white card board. On that evidence, the Revenue failed to discharge the burden of proving that the goods were white card board or that they were covered by the sensitive-item restriction.

Conclusion: The imported goods were not proved to be white card board, the exemption could not be denied on that basis, and the confiscation and penalty could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the impugned order was set aside, with consequential relief subject to the applicable law on unjust enrichment.

Ratio Decidendi: Where classification or eligibility depends on the true identity of the imported goods, the Revenue must establish the asserted description by reliable technical and trade evidence; if the evidence remains equivocal and the expert material does not support the Revenue's case, the benefit goes to the importer.

---