1998 (12) TMI 251 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rules imported squids not consumer goods. Revenue failed to prove consumption, appellant wins.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant in a case concerning the classification of imported squids as consumer goods. The Revenue failed to establish ... Import of squids as bait for catching Tuna fish Issues:1. Classification of imported squids as consumer goods.2. Burden of proof on Revenue to establish squids as consumer goods.3. Validity of the interim order recalling the final order for re-consideration.4. Examination of technical opinions and evidence regarding the consumption of squids.Analysis:1. The main issue in this case is whether the imported squids, used as bait for Tuna Fish in deep sea fishing, should be classified as consumer goods. The Revenue contends that a license for import would be required if the squids are considered consumer goods.2. The burden of proof lies on the Revenue to establish that squids are indeed consumer goods. The appellant argues that the squids are not consumed by human beings in India, citing technical opinions from the Directorate of Fisheries and Directorate of Animal Husbandry. The appellant asserts that the burden of proof has not been met by the Revenue, and the balance of convenience favors the appellant.3. The validity of the interim order recalling the final order for re-consideration is questioned. The consultant for the appellant argues that once the final order was recalled, both the final order and the interim order became non est, allowing for a fresh consideration of the matter.4. The examination of technical opinions and evidence regarding the consumption of squids is crucial in determining their classification as consumer goods. The Tribunal finds that squids do not belong to the fish family and are not normally consumed by human beings in India, as supported by technical opinions from government authorities. The evidence presented by the Revenue, such as the World Book Encyclopedia, is deemed insufficient and not specific to the issue at hand. The Tribunal concludes that the balance of convenience favors the appellant, setting aside the impugned Orders-in-Appeal and ruling in favor of the appellant.