Common parlance test for coking coal upheld, with imported coal qualifying for concessional duty on the evidence.

Imported coal was treated as coking coal for concessional duty because the evidence, including test reports, CFRI material, trade literature and commercial understanding, showed ash content below the prescribed limit and supported classification under the common parlance test. In the absence of a specific tariff definition, the product description was determined by how the goods were understood in trade, and mere use in ferro silicon manufacture was not decisive. The goods were therefore eligible for the concessional rate of duty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported coal was coking coal eligible for concessional duty under the exemption notification.

Analysis: The goods were found to have ash content below the prescribed limit, and the appellate authority considered the test reports, the CFRI material, the trade literature, and the commercial understanding of the product. As the tariff and the relevant materials did not provide a specific definition of coking coal, the issue was determined on the common parlance test. Mere use of the coal in ferro silicon manufacture was held not to be ative of its classification, and the evidence supported the view that the goods answered the description of coking coal.

Conclusion: The imported goods were rightly treated as coking coal and were eligible for the concessional rate of duty.

---