Natural rough semi-precious stone exemption denied where testing showed reconstructed material and artificial stone classification was upheld.

Imported rough tumbled turquerenite was found, on gemological and chemical testing, to be reconstructed or treated material rather than natural rough semi-precious stone. The departmental reports were preferred over the importer's certificate because the composition showed calcium carbonate, synthetic resin binders and organic colouring matter, inconsistent with a natural stone claim. On that basis, exemption available to natural rough semi-precious stones was denied, and classification as articles of artificial stone under Heading 6810.99 was upheld. The departmental assessment was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported rough tumbled turquerenite was classifiable as a natural rough semi-precious stone under Heading 7103.10 so as to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 11/78-Cus.; (ii) whether the goods were correctly held to be classifiable under Heading 6810.99 as articles of artificial stone.

Issue (i): Whether the imported rough tumbled turquerenite was classifiable as a natural rough semi-precious stone under Heading 7103.10 so as to qualify for exemption under Notification No. 11/78-Cus.

Analysis: The record contained a gemological report indicating that the goods may be considered reconstructed or treated turquoise, and a chemical analysis showing that they were mainly composed of calcium carbonate, synthetic resin binders and organic colouring matter. The reports were treated as consistent in showing that the goods were not natural rough semi-precious stones. The certificate produced by the importer was not accepted as sufficient to displace the departmental test reports, particularly when the chemical composition differed from the claimed natural stone composition.

Conclusion: The goods were not natural rough semi-precious stones and were not entitled to exemption under Notification No. 11/78-Cus.

Issue (ii): whether the goods were correctly held to be classifiable under Heading 6810.99 as articles of artificial stone.

Analysis: Once the evidence showed that the goods were reconstructed or treated and were composed of artificial constituents, the departmental classification under Heading 6810.99 was supported. The importer did not satisfactorily explain the discrepancy between the claimed identity of the goods and the chemical composition found on testing.

Conclusion: Classification under Heading 6810.99 was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge succeeded, the importer failed to establish eligibility for customs exemption, and the departmental assessment was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where expert reports establish that imported goods are reconstructed or treated and not natural semi-precious stones, exemption available only to natural rough semi-precious stones cannot be claimed and classification as artificial stone is sustainable.

---