Import classification dispute turned on inconsistent goods descriptions, leading to remand for fresh factual verification and reconsideration.

Material discrepancies in invoices and related documents concerning whether the imported goods were turbine spares, generator parts, or sub-assemblies made the classification issue incapable of final resolution on the existing record. The factual controversy required proper verification of the nature, description, and intended use of the goods, with both parties given an opportunity to place all relevant material. The earlier classification findings were not sustained as final, and the matter was remanded for de novo consideration before the original authority after factual verification and hearing the parties.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment dispute required remand for de novo consideration after verification of the factual position regarding the nature, description, and intended use of the imported goods.

Analysis: The record showed material discrepancies in the description of the goods across invoices, applications, and other documents, including inconsistency as to whether the items were turbine spares, generator parts, or sub-assemblies. The majority view treated this as a factual controversy that could not be satisfactorily resolved on the existing record. In such circumstances, classification had to await proper verification of the evidence by the original authority, with opportunity to the parties to place all relevant material. The earlier findings on classification were therefore not sustained as final on the existing material.

Conclusion: The matter was remanded to the Assistant Commissioner for de novo consideration after verification of facts and hearing the parties.

---