2025 (6) TMI 610 - AT - Customs

Customs classification of imported goods overturned due to incomplete laboratory testing and failure to meet distillation requirements

N.V. Rambabu and Aditya Marine Versus Additional Director General (Adjudication), Mumbai

CESTAT Mumbai allowed the appeal regarding classification of imported goods. The tribunal held that goods could not be classified under CTI 2710 1930 ... Classification of goods imported by the appellants - to be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTI) 2710 1990 described as ‘Mineral Spirit’ as claimed by the appellants; or, is it classifiable under CTI 2710 1930 described as ‘High Speed Diesel Oil (HSD)’ as determined in the impugned order? - appropriate valuation of goods - whether the restrictions/ conditions for import as per ITC-HS of the FTP are applicable on the impugned goods? - HELD THAT:- BIS have prescribed Indian Standard for ‘Mineral Spirit’ as IS 1745:1978 and the same provides for 9 parameters. Once all parameters are fulfilled, the product can be called as ‘Mineral Spirit’. Similarly, BIS have also prescribed Indian Standard for HSD as IS 1460:2005 providing for 21 parameters to be tested. Once all the parameters are tested and found as per the prescribed standards, the product can be classified as HSD. On comparison of the legal requirement as per supplementary note (e) and BIS standards, and the test report given by the Customs laboratory, it is quite clear that firstly all the 21 test parameters which are required to be done for establishing the fact that a product is ‘Diesel Oil/ HSD’ have not been tested and reported by the Customs Laboratory. Further, one of the determining parameter i.e., distillation percentage recovered at 360˚C minimum at 95% has not been fulfilled, as test report dated 16.05.2018 state that it is only 90% - on the basis of test report provided by the Customs Laboratory alone, the impugned order revising the classification of impugned goods, confirming the adjudged demands and consequent confiscation of imported goods, imposition of penalty on the appellants is not legally sustainable. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in an identical set of facts, in Gastrade International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla [2025 (4) TMI 23 - SUPREME COURT] have held that since oil in question does not fully satisfy the specifications of HSD in terms of IS 1460:2005, the correct test to determine the classification of imported goods being most akin to HSD or not, have not been applied. Conclusion - The impugned order revising the classification of imported goods under CTI 2710 1930 and confirmation of adjudged demands, confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on the appellants does not stand the scrutiny of law. The impugned order dated 09.11.2020 passed by the learned adjudicating authority is set aside - Appeal allowed. The core legal questions considered in this case revolve around the classification and valuation of imported goods, specifically whether the goods imported by the appellants should be classified as 'Mineral Spirit' under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 2710 1990 or as 'High Speed Diesel Oil (HSD)' under CTI 2710 1930. This classification directly impacts the applicable customs duty, import restrictions, confiscation proceedings, and penalties. The issues also encompass the reliability and sufficiency of laboratory test reports used to determine the nature of the goods, the admissibility and evidentiary value of statements and documentary evidence gathered during investigation, and the applicability of import policy restrictions under the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP).Detailed analysis of the classification issue begins with the relevant legal framework under the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Section 12 of the Customs Act mandates that customs duties shall be levied according to the Customs Tariff Act, which specifies the classification of goods in its First Schedule. The classification is governed by the General Rules for Interpretation (GIR) and General Explanatory Notes (GEN) within the Schedule, which emphasize that classification must be determined based on the terms of the headings and relative notes, applying sequential rules when goods are classifiable under multiple headings. The test of 'most akin' or closest resemblance is pivotal when statutory definitions or complete conformity to standards are absent.The dispute centers on whether the imported goods conform to the Indian Standards Specification for 'Mineral Spirit' (IS 1745:1978) or for 'High Speed Diesel' (IS 1460:2005). The appellants imported goods declared as 'Mineral Spirit' and supported by test reports for past consignments that were not challenged by the department. The department, relying on test reports of live consignments from the Customs Laboratory, contended that the goods were misdeclared and were in fact HSD, a restricted import item. The laboratory tested only 6 out of 21 parameters prescribed under IS 1460:2005 for HSD, concluding that the goods 'may be' diesel oil. Notably, the distillation percentage-a critical parameter-was 90%, below the 95% minimum required for HSD classification. The laboratory also lacked the full testing facilities at the time of testing.The appellants challenged the reliance on incomplete test reports, citing precedents where the Tribunal held that incomplete or inconclusive test reports cannot form the basis for reclassification. They argued that several parameters tested matched 'Mineral Spirit' standards, and the term 'may be' in the report indicated uncertainty. Further, statements recorded during investigation were retracted and thus lacked evidentiary value. The appellants also disputed the department's reliance on invoices retrieved from seized computers, which were not corroborated by direct invoices between their foreign supplier and themselves, and which related to products other than the imported consignments.The Tribunal examined these contentions alongside the relevant statutory provisions, the Bureau of Indian Standards specifications, and the evidentiary record. It emphasized that classification must be based on complete and conclusive evidence, particularly compliance with all parameters specified in the relevant Indian Standard. The Tribunal noted that the laboratory's failure to test all 21 parameters for HSD, and the failure to meet the critical distillation parameter, undermined the department's case for reclassification. The Tribunal also highlighted that the retracted statements could not be relied upon without corroborative evidence, referencing settled legal principles that confessions or admissions made under duress or during investigation must be independently corroborated to be admissible.In support, the Tribunal relied on a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in a similar case, which held that partial conformity to HSD standards is insufficient for classification as HSD and that the test of 'most akin' should be applied. The Supreme Court underscored the necessity of comprehensive testing and expert opinion to conclusively classify petroleum products and cautioned against reliance on inconclusive evidence. The Court also directed authorities to ensure availability of facilities to test all parameters essential for classification to avoid protracted litigation.Applying these principles, the Tribunal found that the department's evidence was insufficient to displace the declared classification of the goods as 'Mineral Spirit'. The invoices and diaries relied upon by the department were either uncorroborated, unrelated to the impugned consignments, or acknowledged by the department's representative as unreliable. The Tribunal held that the goods imported under both live and past consignments were rightly classified as 'Mineral Spirit', and the department failed to prove misclassification or undervaluation. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order confirming the reclassification, confiscation, and penalties.Significant holdings include the following verbatim legal reasoning:'For a product to be considered as Diesel Oil, the same requires to fulfil all 21 parameters mentioned in IS 1460:2005. In the present case, the Custom House Laboratory vide aforesaid test reports have tested only 6 parameters. Hence, in other words, the Custom House Laboratory has not tested all the 21 parameters required in terms of IS 1460: 2005. We are of the view that without testing all the aforesaid parameters, the test reports cannot be considered to reclassify the imported goods as Diesel Oil.''The law is well settled that merely because an assessee has, under the stress of investigation, signed a statement admitting tax liability, it cannot lead to self- assessment or self ascertainment. The initial burden to prove that the confession was voluntary is upon the department and that evidence brought by confession if retracted, must be corroborated by other independent and cogent evidence.''The oil in question does not fully satisfy the specifications of HSD in terms of IS 1460:2005. Hence, the correct test will be whether the oil/article in issue is most akin to HSD or not for which appropriate scientific evidence in the form of laboratory test reports and opinion of the scientific experts will be of utmost relevance.''Non-examination of any product/article/goods on all the parameters laid down by the customs authority will always lead to uncertainty and doubt, which are required to be removed when dealing with confiscatory proceedings. It is incumbent upon the Authorities to ensure that necessary facilities are made available for testing of any disputed article on all these parameters as otherwise, laying down such parameters would be meaningless.'In conclusion, the Tribunal determined that the impugned order revising classification to HSD, confirming duty demands, confiscation, and penalties was unsustainable in law due to insufficient and inconclusive evidence. The classification of the imported goods as 'Mineral Spirit' under CTI 2710 1990 was upheld, with consequential relief granted to the appellants. The Tribunal's decision reinforces the principle that classification disputes must be resolved on the basis of complete and conclusive scientific evidence, adherence to statutory standards, and proper application of legal tests such as the 'most akin' criterion, while ensuring procedural fairness in reliance on statements and documentary evidence.