Exemption for imported terminals denied where proof of motor rating was insufficient to meet the customs notification threshold.

Imported fusite terminals were accepted as classifiable under heading 85.36, but the concessional customs duty under Notification No. 162/86-Cus. applied only to goods for use with motors of 1.5 KW or above. The refund claim failed because the appellants did not produce reliable evidence showing the electrical ratings of the motors for which the terminals were specifically intended. Product literature referring to above one and a half HP was insufficient to establish the required threshold. As the goods had already been cleared and were unavailable for examination, the burden to prove entitlement to the exemption and reassessment remained on the appellants, and that burden was not discharged.

---

---

Issues: Whether the imported fusite terminals were eligible for the concessional customs duty under Notification No. 162/86-Cus. dated 1-3-1986 on the basis that they were for use with motors of 1.5 KW or above, and whether the appellants had adduced sufficient evidence to justify reassessment and refund.

Analysis: The goods were accepted as classifiable under heading 85.36 of the Customs Tariff, but the notification benefit was limited to goods for use with motors of 1.5 KW or above. The refund claim failed because no reliable evidence was produced to show the electrical ratings of the motors for which the terminals were specifically meant. The product literature only indicated a rating above one and a half HP, which did not by itself establish the required threshold. Since the goods had already been cleared and were not available for examination, the burden to justify a different classification and entitlement to the exemption remained on the appellants, and that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 162/86-Cus. dated 1-3-1986, and the rejection of the refund claim was upheld.

---