Tribunal upholds appellant's classification of imported oil as furnace oil over waste oil due to unreliable laboratory testing

CESTAT Ahmedabad ruled in favor of appellant regarding classification dispute between furnace oil (CTH 27101950) versus waste oil (CTH 27109900) imported from UAE. The tribunal found that CRCL Vadodara/Delhi lacked proper testing facilities for waste oil/furnace oil prior to Circular 15/2009, making their test reports unreliable. Since testing occurred before facilities were available per Board Circular dated 07.06.2009, the laboratory reports could not be accepted. The tribunal upheld appellant's declaration regarding goods classification and valuation, setting aside confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. Appeals were allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the test report conducted by CRCL Vadodara.
2. Compliance with High Court orders regarding provisional release of goods.

Summary:

1. Legality of the test report conducted by CRCL Vadodara:
The appellant challenged the classification of imported furnace oil as waste oil based on CRCL Vadodara's test report. The appellant argued that CRCL Vadodara was neither authorized nor equipped to test the subject goods during the relevant period, citing Circulars No. 30/2017-Cus, 43/2017-Cus, 11/2018-Cus, and 15/2019-Cus. The Tribunal found that during the relevant period, CRCL Vadodara and CRCL Delhi did not have the facilities to test waste oil/furnace oil, as confirmed by Circulars No. 43/2017-Cus and 11/2018-Cus. The Tribunal referenced several judgments, including Asian Granito India Vs. CC, Mundra, and Chem Plast Vs. C.C- Jamnagar, which supported the view that test reports from laboratories not equipped to test specific goods cannot be accepted. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the test report from CRCL Vadodara was not valid, and the appellant's declaration regarding the nature, classification, and valuation of the goods was correct.

2. Compliance with High Court orders regarding provisional release of goods:
The appellant contended that the department failed to comply with the High Court's order to release the goods provisionally upon furnishing a bank guarantee. The Tribunal acknowledged the High Court's order dated 17.09.2018, which directed the department to release the goods upon the appellant furnishing a bank guarantee. Despite the department's letter dated 31.10.2018 requesting the appellant to take charge of their goods, the goods were not released. The Tribunal noted that non-compliance with the High Court's order is a matter for the High Court to address. However, since the Tribunal found the appellant's declarations to be correct, the appellant was entitled to the release of the goods.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential relief, and confirmed that the appellant's declarations regarding the nature, classification, and valuation of the goods were correct.

---