1994 (8) TMI 152 - AT - Central Excise

Trade Parlance Prevails Over Dictionary Definitions in Goods Classification

The judgment upheld the Trade's understanding over dictionary definitions, emphasizing the importance of evidence and Trade Parlance interpretation in ... Appeal - Additional evidence Issues:1. Production of additional documents before the Collector (Appeals).2. Classification of imported goods as plasticisers.3. Interpretation of the term 'plasticisers' in Trade Parlance.4. Burden of proof on the Department to establish imported goods as plasticisers.Production of Additional Documents:The applicant Company filed a Miscellaneous Application seeking to produce additional documents that were not presented before the Adjudicating Authority but were before the Collector (Appeals). Despite objections raised by the respondent Collector, the Application was allowed after considering arguments from both sides and the precedent set by the Supreme Court regarding document submission.Classification of Imported Goods:The dispute centered on whether 1000 Kgs. of Diallyl Phathalata (DAP Monomer) imported by the respondent Company were plasticisers. The Department contended that they were plasticisers based on literature provided by the respondent. However, the respondent argued that Trade Parlance understanding should determine the classification. The Collector (Appeals) concluded that DAP Monomer was not a plasticiser, emphasizing the Trade's understanding over dictionary definitions and literature references.Interpretation of 'Plasticisers' in Trade Parlance:The judgment emphasized that the Trade's common understanding of terms like 'plasticisers' should prevail over dictionary meanings. It was highlighted that the mere mention of one use of DAP Monomer as a reactive plasticiser in literature did not automatically classify it as a plasticiser, especially when other uses were also mentioned. Precedents were cited to support the principle of Trade understanding in such cases.Burden of Proof on the Department:The judgment reiterated that the burden of proof lies with the Department to establish that the imported goods are indeed plasticisers. It was emphasized that the Department failed to provide sufficient evidence to categorize DAP Monomer as a plasticiser in Trade Parlance. The lack of evidence led to the dismissal of the Department's appeal and upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision regarding the non-confiscation of the goods.In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Trade's understanding over dictionary definitions, emphasizing the importance of evidence and Trade Parlance interpretation in determining the classification of imported goods. The burden of proof rested on the Department, which failed to establish the imported goods as plasticisers, leading to the dismissal of their appeal.