Cross-examination rights in customs classification disputes were emphasised where technical evidence and relied-upon material were not properly tested.

Classification of export goods as Natural Garnet under CTH 2513 20 30 rather than Abrasive Mesh under CTH 2513 20 90 depended on technical properties of the goods, and the dispute was not properly adjudicated because the assessee was denied cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner and access to relied-upon communications. The Tribunal noted that no reasoned finding had been recorded on the refusal of cross-examination or on non-supply of the IREL communications, even though such material was central to the classification exercise. Applying the principle that a statement proposed to be used against a party requires an opportunity of cross-examination, the impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, with merits left open.

---

---

Issues: Whether the export goods were correctly classified as Natural Garnet under CTH 2513 20 30 instead of Abrasive Mesh under CTH 2513 20 90, and whether the classification order could be sustained when the assessee was denied cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner and access to relied-upon communications.

Analysis: The Tribunal found that the classification dispute turned on technical properties of the goods, and that the appellate authority had not recorded any finding explaining why cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner was denied or why the requested communications from IREL were not supplied. Since the factual basis for classification was technical and material, the absence of a reasoned examination of these objections meant the dispute had not been properly adjudicated. The Tribunal relied on the principle that when a statement is proposed to be used against a party, an opportunity of cross-examination must be afforded.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration, leaving the merits open.

---