TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 478
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the cases are that M/s S.K. Petrochem imported consignments of "Pressed Distillate Oil" from M/s Om Udyog, on high seas basis and filed four Bills of Entry Nos. 8323294 dated 26.10.2012, 9074605, 9074611 and 9074608 dated 19.012013 for clearance of the same, declaring classification of goods under CTH 27101990; as there was an alert department has drawn samples and sent them for testing to CRCL New Delhi, who vide Test Memo, in respect of BE No. 8323294 dated 26.10.2012, reported that the sample had characteristics of base oil; the goods imported were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 and were ordered to be released provisionally subject to the conditions as fixed; statement of Shri Jeevan Jain, Proprietor and various other persons were recorded; Shri Jeevan Jain retracted his statement later; on conclusion of investigation, a Show Cause Notice, dated 29.01.2014, was issued proposing to reject the declared classification of goods i.e. "Pressed Distillate Oil" and to re classify the same as "Lubricating Oil" as well as "Base Oil" and proposing to impose penalties and fines. The Show Cause Notice was adjudicated confirming the proposals as below. Bills of Entr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cided the issue, of similar imports, in the case similar case of M/s Golden Enterprises 2016 (341) ELT 293 (Tri-Chd.), in favour of the appellants on the grounds that the chemical examiner has not categorically given his finding or answer to the memo; he has only indicated that the goods have the characteristics of 'base oil' without giving his opinion whether the goods were in fact 'base oil' or were PDO; Cross-Examination of the chemical examiner by the appellant before the Adjudicating Authority would have enabled them to seek categorical answers; denial of cross-examination is a serious miscarriage of the principles of natural justice has happened; the said Order was assailed before the Hon'ble High Court as well as Supreme Court, the Appeals of the Department were dismissed; the said judgment is binding upon the Department. He further relies on the decision of Kolkata Bench of the Tribunal in the case of JRR Associates (2023) 12 Centax 269 (Tri-Cal) and submits that Hon'ble CESTAT has held that the suggestion of CRCL, in the said test reports provides that the samples 'may be' of base oil, which means it 'may not be' of base oil. Such test reports cannot be bas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hrown some more light and would have given clarity to the issue. Revenue has missed such an opportunity. Under the circumstances, benefit of doubt needs to be given to the importer, as Revenue could not conclusively establish that the impugned goods are base oil. 7. We find that this Bench had an occasion to decide a case of identical import in the case of M/s Golden Enterprises2016 (341) ELT 293 (Tri-Chd). We find that the Bench observed as follows. "7. On careful consideration of all the materials before us, we find that the chemical examiner's test reports are crucial in this case. In the reports (Para 4 supra), we find that the chemical examiner has indicated that the samples have the characteristic of 'base oil'. From the note appended at the bottom of the reports, it appears to us that the chemical examiner were not in possession of any technical literature about the product PDO. The memo sent by the DRI to the chemical examiner requested him to confirm whether the goods were PDO or not. From a perusal of the test reports we get impression that the chemical examiner has not categorically given his finding or answer to the memo. He has only indicated that the goods....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conclude that the imported goods were not PDO but 'base oil' and allege mis-declaration on the part of the importer only on the basis of the chemical examiner's report on one out of three characteristics will not be correct. In the absence of conclusive evidence of misdeclarations, the Customs Authorities should have gone with the declaration and finalized the assessments. 11. Next we turn to the valuation of the imported goods. The Commissioner in the impugned order has rejected the declared value under Rule 12(1) of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, read with Section 14(1) of Customs Act. This has been done considering that the goods have been mis-declared to be PDO. Consequently, the Adjudicating Authority has proceeded to redetermine the value on the basis of the price of 'base oil' imported contemporaneously. We have concluded that the misdeclaration in the imported goods have not been established. Consequently, we find that there is no basis to disregard the declared value." 8. We find that the facts of the case, in as much as the declarations by the importers, the chemical examiners reports and the findings of the adjudicating authority are identical. Therefore, we ....