Scientific classification of imported goods as limestone, not marble, sustained misdeclaration findings and denial of exemption benefits.

Imported goods were held to be limestone, not marble, because the Geological Survey of India's technical report found crystalline limestone with no evidence of metamorphic recrystallisation. The Tribunal preferred this scientific classification over dictionary meanings and rejected the appellant's explanations and selective reliance on cross-examination. It also noted excess quantity at first check, supporting a finding of misdeclaration as to both nature and quantity. On that basis, the confiscation, redemption fine, penalty, and denial of exemption under the advance licence notification were justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported goods were correctly classified as marble or were liable to be treated as limestone, and whether the resulting confiscation, redemption fine, penalty, and denial of exemption under the advance licence notification were justified.

Analysis: The goods were tested by the Geological Survey of India, which gave a categorical report that the sample was crystalline limestone and not marble, with no evidence of metamorphic recrystallisation. The Tribunal preferred this technical and scientific opinion over dictionary meanings relied upon by the appellant. It also noted that the first check showed excess quantity over the declared import and that the earlier authorities had found the appellant's explanations and selective reliance on cross-examination insufficient to dislodge the expert report. On that basis, the Tribunal held that the appellant had misdeclared both the nature and quantity of the goods, and that the imported goods did not answer the description of marble required for the claimed exemption.

Conclusion: The goods were rightly held to be limestone and not marble, and the confiscation, redemption fine, penalty, and denial of benefit under the notification were justified.

---