Import classification turns on port-of-import evidence, supporting reclassification of declared scrap as grinding media balls.

Imported goods were examined at the port of import, and consistent expert evidence supported the view that they were new and unused grinding media balls rather than alloy steel melting scrap. The pre-inspection certificate from the port of origin was given less weight, while the chemical test report did not resolve whether the goods were new or old and the appellant's supporting expert retracted his earlier opinion in cross-examination. On that basis, the goods were reclassified under the relevant customs tariff chapter, the declaration in the import documents was treated as incorrect, and the resulting misdeclaration, duty demand, confiscation and penalties were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods were correctly classified as alloy steel melting scrap or were liable to be reclassified as grinding media balls, and whether the finding of misdeclaration and the consequential duty, confiscation and penalties were sustainable.

Analysis: The imported containers were examined in India and three expert opinions obtained by Customs consistently stated that the disputed goods were new and unused grinding media balls. The contrary pre-inspection certificate from the port of origin was given less weight, because the examination at the port of import was treated as more relevant for assessment. The report of the chemical testing agency did not determine whether the goods were new or old, while the expert relied on by the appellant retracted his earlier view during cross-examination. The goods were therefore found to be grinding media balls falling under the relevant customs tariff chapter, and not scrap as declared. Once the classification declared in the import documents was found incorrect, the charge of misdeclaration and the resulting re-determination of value and duty followed.

Conclusion: The reclassification of the goods and the finding of misdeclaration were upheld, and the appellant's challenge to the confiscation, duty demand and penalties failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were not accepted, and the impugned order restoring the adjudication findings was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: For assessment of imported goods, the examination and expert evidence obtained at the port of import may be preferred over a pre-inspection certificate from the port of origin, and if such evidence establishes that the goods are different from what was declared, reclassification and the consequence of misdeclaration are justified.

---