Classification of rubber goods cannot rest on an untested chemical report lacking proof of vulcanisation and rebuttal opportunity.

Classification of rubber channels based on a chemical examiner's report was challenged because the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to test and rebut the material before the appellate authority. The report did not atively establish that the goods were vulcanised rubber other than hard rubber; it referred to elongation and recovery characteristics under Chapter 40 notes but did not state that sulphur or any other vulcanising agent had been used. On that basis, a retest by the Central Laboratory was considered justified, and the classification order was set aside for fresh determination after proper testing and rebuttal opportunity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the classification of the rubber channels could be sustained on the basis of the chemical examiner's report without a proper opportunity to the assessee to test and rebut that material, and whether the report established that the goods were vulcanised rubber other than hard rubber.

Analysis: The impugned classification was founded on a chemical examiner's report obtained without making it clear to the assessee that the inspection and report were in connection with the pending appeal, and without giving an effective opportunity to challenge the result before the appellate authority. The report itself did not answer the decisive question, namely whether the goods were in fact vulcanised rubber other than hard rubber. It referred to elongation and recovery characteristics under Note 4(a) to Chapter 40, but did not state that the rubber had been treated with sulphur or any other vulcanising agent. In these circumstances, the assessee's request for a retest by the Central Laboratory was justified.

Conclusion: The classification order could not be sustained. The appeal was allowed and the matter was sent back for fresh determination after proper testing and an opportunity to rebut the test result.

---