Tariff classification by objective coal specifications prevails over trade description, and pre-deposit waiver depends on prima facie merit and hardship.

Where a tariff entry defines coal by objective physical and calorific parameters, classification follows that statutory definition rather than trade nomenclature. Coal with volatile matter above 14% and gross calorific value at or above 5833 kcal/kg was treated as prima facie falling within bituminous coal under Chapter 27, even if described commercially as steam coal. At the stay stage, waiver of pre-deposit was refused because no strong prima facie case or pleaded financial hardship was shown, and recovery was stayed only on compliance with the deposit requirement.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether coal having volatile matter content exceeding 14% and gross calorific value equal to or above 5833 kcal/kg is prima facie classifiable as bituminous coal under Chapter 27 despite being known in trade as steam coal; (ii) whether waiver of pre-deposit was warranted.

Issue (i): Whether coal having volatile matter content exceeding 14% and gross calorific value equal to or above 5833 kcal/kg is prima facie classifiable as bituminous coal under Chapter 27 despite being known in trade as steam coal.

Analysis: The classification was tested against the explanatory note defining bituminous coal by specified physical and calorific parameters. Where the tariff itself provides a definition, the commodity must be understood according to that definition rather than by commercial or trade nomenclature. On the materials placed, coal satisfying those parameters was treated as falling within the bituminous coal entry under CTH 2701 12.

Conclusion: The coal was held prima facie classifiable as bituminous coal under Chapter 27 and not merely as steam coal by trade description.

Issue (ii): Whether waiver of pre-deposit was warranted.

Analysis: In the absence of a prima facie case in favour of the appellant and in the absence of pleaded financial hardship, the balance of convenience was held to lie with Revenue. Accordingly, no waiver of the entire duty demand was granted at the stay stage.

Conclusion: Waiver of pre-deposit was declined and the appellant was directed to deposit the duty amount.

Final Conclusion: The application was disposed of at the interlocutory stage by requiring full pre-deposit of the adjudged duty, with stay of recovery to operate only upon compliance.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a tariff entry defines a commodity by objective specifications, classification follows that statutory definition notwithstanding trade nomenclature; at the stay stage, waiver of pre-deposit depends on a prima facie case and financial hardship.

---