Tariff classification and lab report evidence: vague objections cannot displace departmental testing or justify fresh re-examination.

Classification of the product between Tariff Item 15AA and Tariff Item 15A(1) depended on laboratory evidence showing whether it had the surface-active properties of an organic surface active agent or preparation. The departmental chemical examiner and Chief Chemist reported that the sample lacked those properties. In the absence of any specific challenge to the competence, equipment, bias, or prejudice of the departmental laboratories, a general dissatisfaction with the reports was insufficient to reject them. Fresh objections raised at the appellate stage, including molecular weight and degree of polymerisation, could not be entertained when they had not been pressed before the adjudicating authority. The direction for re-testing by an independent laboratory was therefore not justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order directing re-testing of the product by an independent laboratory and setting aside the original classification was justified on the ground that the departmental laboratory reports were vague or non-explicit.

Analysis: The product was under scrutiny for classification between Tariff Item 15AA and Tariff Item 15A(1). The departmental chemical examiner and the Chief Chemist had reported that the sample did not possess the surface-active properties required for treatment as an organic surface active agent or preparation. In the absence of any specific allegation that the departmental laboratories lacked the necessary equipment or that the reports were tainted by bias or prejudice, a general dissatisfaction with the test results could not justify rejection of those reports. The respondent also could not raise, at the appellate stage, fresh objections such as molecular weight and degree of polymerisation when those points had not been pressed before the adjudicating authority.

Conclusion: The order directing re-examination by an independent body was unsustainable, and the original classification order could not be set aside on the ground that the departmental reports were vague.

---