Rigid cans and exemption eligibility upheld where expert testing disproved classification as collapsible containers

Imported empty aluminium can bodies were treated as rigid cans, not collapsible tubular containers, for purposes of Notification No. 236/89-Cus. The lower authorities relied on a semi-rigid description, but a metallurgical certificate based on mechanical testing identified the samples as rigid cans, and that expert evidence was not displaced by any contrary material. On that record, the goods did not fall within the excluded category and remained eligible for concessional customs exemption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported empty aluminium can bodies were collapsible tubular containers so as to be outside the benefit of Notification No. 236/89-Cus. dated 1.9.1989, or whether they were rigid cans eligible for concessional duty.

Analysis: The imported goods were initially granted the benefit of the notification, but the demand was raised on the premise that they were collapsible tubular containers. The lower authorities relied on an opinion describing the goods as semi-rigid, but the record also contained a certificate from the Department of Metallurgy, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, certifying the samples as rigid cans after mechanical testing. That expert evidence was not properly considered, and there was no contrary material to displace it. On the available record, the goods could not be treated as collapsible containers.

Conclusion: The goods were held to be rigid cans and therefore eligible for exemption under Notification No. 236/89-Cus. dated 1.9.1989.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the nature of imported goods is established by credible expert evidence and no contrary finding survives, they cannot be denied the benefit of an exemption notification on an unsupported assumption that they fall within an excluded category.

---