Customs classification of imported liquor concentrate rejected where evidence and prior revision order supported brandy concentrate treatment.

Imported consignments were examined against the licence and laboratory material, and the Court accepted that the goods were brandy concentrate intended for blending rather than prohibited over-proof brandy. It also held that the revisional authority could not disregard an earlier revisional decision involving identical goods and identical licences where relief had already been granted, and rejected the attempt to distinguish that ruling on burden of proof. On merits, the finding that the goods were not concentrate was treated as unsustainable, and reliance on the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature and other speculative considerations for classification was disapproved. The confiscation and penalty order under the Customs Act was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods were brandy concentrate or over-proof brandy, and whether the confiscation and penalty order under the Customs Act could be sustained.

Analysis: The imported consignments were examined against the licence and laboratory material, and the Court found that the evidence supported the petitioner's case that the goods were brandy concentrate intended for blending and not prohibited brandy. The Court also held that the revisional authority could not ignore an earlier revisional decision on identical goods and identical licences, where relief had been granted to the petitioner. The attempt to distinguish the earlier decision on the basis of burden of proof was rejected. On merits as well, the Court found the conclusion that the goods were not concentrate to be unsustainable, and disapproved reliance on the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature and other speculative considerations for classification.

Conclusion: The confiscation and adverse orders were unsustainable, and the petition succeeded.

---