Imported glazed tiles classification upheld; retest request denied; penalty for unlicensed importation confirmed.

The Tribunal upheld the classification of imported goods as glazed tiles, requiring a license for importation. The request for a retest was dismissed as unnecessary, and the claim of classifying goods differently to avoid restrictions was rejected. The Commissioner's order confiscating the goods and imposing a penalty for importation without a license was deemed valid, with the appeal being dismissed.

---

---

Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Tariff Heading, Importation without proper license, Request for retest of goods, Claim of goods under different classification, Validity of Commissioner's order.

Classification of Goods:
The appeal involved the classification of imported goods under Tariff Heading for the purpose of determining whether they could be imported without a license. The appellants claimed the goods were unglazed porcelain tiles, while the Customs authorities classified them as glazed tiles under a different heading. The decision was based on tests conducted by CRCL, which confirmed the characteristics of glazed tiles. The Tribunal upheld the classification of the goods as glazed tiles, requiring a license for importation.

Request for Retest:
The appellants requested a retest of the goods from the Central Glass and Ceramics Research Institute to challenge the classification. However, the Tribunal found no reason to doubt the accuracy of the CRCL reports, which clearly identified the goods as glazed tiles. The Tribunal dismissed the request for a retest, noting that the goods had already been released and utilized by the appellants.

Claim of Goods Under Different Classification:
The appellants later claimed that the goods could be classified under a different heading to avoid import restrictions. However, the Tribunal rejected this claim, stating that the goods were specifically classifiable as glazed tiles under the original Tariff Heading. The Tribunal deemed this claim as an afterthought to cover up the failure to obtain the required import license.

Validity of Commissioner's Order:
The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's order, confiscating the goods and imposing a penalty for importation without a license, was legally sound and valid. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Commissioner's decision, as the appellants failed to prove that the goods were misclassified or eligible for import without a license. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commissioner's order.

---