Marble classification and valuation rules: limited polishing keeps blocks under Heading 2515, while unsupported comparable imports cannot displace declared value.

Marble blocks imported with one side polished remained classifiable as rough marble blocks under Heading 2515 because limited surface polishing did not amount to the further working required for Heading 6802. The declared transaction value could not be rejected on the available record, as contemporaneous imports were not shown to be comparable in quality and origin alone was insufficient. Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustained because the goods were imported without the requisite licence for restricted goods, and no reduction was warranted on the facts stated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether marble blocks imported with one side polished were classifiable as rough marble blocks under Heading 2515 or as worked marble blocks under Heading 6802; (ii) whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of contemporaneous import values; (iii) whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether marble blocks imported with one side polished were classifiable as rough marble blocks under Heading 2515 or as worked marble blocks under Heading 6802.

Analysis: Chapter 25 covers marble presented in the mass, roughly trimmed or merely cut into blocks or slabs, while Heading 6802 applies only to stone that has been further worked beyond normal quarry products. The imported blocks remained in block form, and polishing of one side did not amount to the further working contemplated by Heading 6802.

Conclusion: The goods were correctly classified under Heading 2515 and not under Heading 6802, against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the declared transaction value could be rejected and enhanced on the basis of contemporaneous import values.

Analysis: Rejection of transaction value required a legally sustainable basis showing comparability of the relied-upon imports. The record did not establish that the cited bills of entry represented goods of similar quality, and mere reference to country of origin and contemporaneous prices was insufficient on the facts.

Conclusion: The declared transaction value could not be rejected on the material available, in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustainable.

Analysis: Since the import was made without the requisite licence for restricted goods, confiscation and penalty followed from the contravention. The quantum of redemption fine and penalty was not found warranting reduction on the facts presented.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were sustained, against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent that the declared value was restored, while the classification against the importer and the consequential confiscatory and penal consequences were maintained, with duty and ancillary liabilities to be recomputed on the basis indicated.

Ratio Decidendi: Marble blocks remain classifiable as Heading 2515 goods unless they are worked beyond mere cutting or limited surface polishing, and transaction value cannot be rejected without a reliable comparable basis showing similarity of the relied-upon imports.

---