Tariff classification burden of proof: unsupported expert opinion could not displace the assessee's heading for acrylic plastic waste.

Imported acrylic sheet off-cuts and broken pieces were treated as single thermoplastic material, but the classification dispute turned on whether they had been converted into primary forms excluded from Chapter 39 or remained waste, parings and scrap. The Revenue's evidence was found insufficient because the Chemical Examiner relied on visual inspection and HSN references without a proper chemical examination or stated factual basis. An expert opinion must disclose its grounds and cannot itself decide tariff classification. As the Revenue bears the burden of proving the claimed heading, unsupported assertions were inadequate to displace the assessee's classification.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported acrylic sheet off-cuts and broken pieces were classifiable under Heading 39.06 as acrylic polymers in primary forms or under Heading 39.15 as waste, parings and scrap of plastics, and whether the Revenue had discharged the burden of proving the claimed classification.

Analysis: The goods were accepted to be of single thermoplastic material. The dispute turned on whether they had been transformed into primary forms so as to attract the exclusion in Note 7 to Chapter 39. The evidence relied upon by the Revenue was found insufficient, as the Chemical Examiner's opinion was based on visual inspection and HSN references, without a chemical examination establishing the relevant factual basis. The Court held that an expert must state the grounds of opinion and cannot assume the function of deciding classification. Since the Revenue bears the burden to prove that the goods fall within the proposed tariff heading, mere assertions and an unsupported opinion were not enough to sustain classification under Heading 39.15.

Conclusion: The Revenue failed to prove that the goods were classifiable under Heading 39.15, and the classification claimed by the assessee could not be displaced.

---