TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 814
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and IS 1745:2018 (RA 2023);That for goods to qualify as "Thinner, General Purpose for Synthetic Paints and Varnishes", strict compliance with the description requirement under clause 4.1 of the said standard is indispensable which provides that the product shall be predominately based on a mixture of Aliphatic and Aromatic Hydrocarbons; That CRCL Vadodara test reports failed to examine or record any finding regarding compliance with this Clause and did not specify presence or the percentage of Aromatic hydrocarbons in the Test samples. 1.1 The appeal further mentions that CRCL Vadodara Test Reports simultaneously recorded conformity with both the above IS specifications without addressing or resolving mutually exclusive nature of the description required under the two standards which makes the report inherently inconclusive. Such testing is contrary to the binding ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Gastrade International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, wherein it has been held that the goods must be tested strictly in accordance with all parameters prescribed under the relevant IS standards. 1.2 That vide letter dated 22.09.2025, CRCL Vadodara was asked to c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... * The importer never raised objections relating to Sulphur content, odour characteristics and allied issues either in reply to show cause notice or during personal hearing and has raised for the first time at the Appellate stage. * Reliance on the Order passed by the Additional Commissioner Customs (Preventive) Jamnagar, is misplaced without considering factual and evidentiary matrix. * The impugned order for release of confiscated goods within 7 days of the receipt of order is beyond the powers vested on Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, as this Section only allows for confirming, modifying or annulling the order appealed against and does not vest with any authority to issue executive direction for implementing his order since such a directive limits the right of the aggrieved party to file appeal and obtain stay. * It is prayed to grant stay against the impugned order dated 26.12.2025 as interim relief and finally set aside the same by upholding the order-in-original dated 02.12.2025, passed by the Additional Commissioner. 3. Learned Advocate filed early hearing application in the matter which was allowed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rmed by the Supreme Court in 2025 (393) E.L.T. 459 (S.C.)} b) Damodar J. Malpani vs. Collector of Central Excise, 2002 (146) ELT 483 (S.C.) c) C.C.E., Navi Mumbai vs. Amar Bitumen & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd., 2006 (202) ELT 213 (S.C.) 4.2 He pleaded that the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals) be implemented and stay application as well as appeal filed by Revenue against the said order be rejected. 5. We have heard rival submissions. In the Bills of Entry, respondent has classified imported goods as "Thinner, General Purpose for Synthetic Paints and Varnishes" as per IS 14317:1995, whereas according to Revenue, these goods fall under the category of "Petroleum Hydrocarbon Solvent 125/240" as per IS 1745:2018.Revenue drew samples and got them tested by CRCL, Vadodara which vide various test report(s)intimated quantitative value against certain test parameters whereas against some, it just mentioned "passes the test". Copy of one such test report is reproduced below:- TM No./ Test Report No Description Found RCL/SIIB Mundra/IMP/3221/ 04.09.2025 T.M No. 194/2025-26 The sample as received is in the form of clear colorless liquid, free from acidic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing tested from some other recognised Government Lab. CRCL Vadodara vide letter dated 30th September,2025 identified the goods as Petroleum Hydrocarbon Solvent 125/240,responded to remaining points as under:- "They have identified the product as Petroleum Hydrocarbon Solvent 125/240 by the analysis of testing parameters given under IS 1745:2018 as per the mandate/requirements of testing petroleum Hydrocarbon Solvent under CTH 2710 1920.As per standard testing protocol, these samples were initially being tested to identify the description of sample given on the test memo i.e. Thinner, General Purpose for Synthetic Paints and Varnishes. Analysis was carried out for the parameters given under the said IS which were found matching. Hence, they issued test reports stating that tested parameters also matched with specification of Thinner." 5.2 As per facts of the case, Customs Lab Visakhapatnam was enquired if they had testing facility for examining the goods as per all IS mentioned in previous test memos which was replied to in affirmative. Accordingly, representative sealed samples were sent to Customs Laboratory Visakhapatnam vide test memo No. 245/2025-26 to 2062/2025-26 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osite solvent of Section VI of CT (3814). 5.3 We find that the Adjudicating Authority relied on above test reports of Customs House Lab Visakhapatnam to reject the declared description of goods as Thinner, General Purpose for Synthetic Paints and Varnishes and redetermined classification of the imported goods as Petroleum Hydrocarbon Solvent 125/240 under CTH 27101920.He also upheld the proposal of confiscation of imported goods, demand of duty along with interest and imposition of penalty, etc. on the basis of these test report(s). 5.4 We find that the respondent has claimed that test values of various parameters as tested by CRCL Vadodara, match with both the IS specifications - one pertaining to Thinner, General Purpose for Synthetic Paints and Varnishes and the other pertaining to Petroleum Hydrocarbon Solvent. He claims that the Rules of Interpretation of Customs Tariff Act also support the classification adopted by the importer since as per these Rules, if a product can be classified under two different headings, then the heading which comes last in numerical order is to be preferred. Also, similar commodity imported in the jurisdiction of Customs preventive Commissione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 */ ISO 8754/ ISO 20846 viii Copper strip corrosion for 3 h at 50°C Not worse than No. 1 P:15 ix Residue on evaporation, mg/100 ml, Max. 5 P:29(AirJet) * In case of dispute, Method P 34 shall be used a reference method. 5.6 From the above specifications, we find that certain parameters have same value range which fits in both the products. However, certain parameters differ in both the IS specification which need to be tested as correct classification of goods cannot be determined in absence of all the relevant parameters. 5.7 As regards stay on the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), we find that Revenue has challenged the test reports of CRCL Vadodara which did not test all the parameters as specified under IS specifications. We agree that such reports cannot be relied upon to hold classification of imported goods either under CTH 38140019 or CTH 27101920. We also agree with revenue that the orders passed by Additional Commissioner, Customs (Prev.) Jamnagar in case of other importers, cannot be squarely applied to this case as incomplete test report(s) do not reveal the exact nature of goods. We further find that test report(s) of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re of the view that non-examination of any product/article/goods on all the parameters laid down by the customs authority will always lead to uncertainty and doubt, which are required to be removed when dealing with confiscatory proceedings. The genesis of the prolonged litigation lies in the non-availability of adequate facilities for testing all the parameters provided under Bureau of Indian Standard Specifications. Such a dispute could have been avoided had the testing facilities for all the parameters been available. Since the Authorities themselves had laid down the specific parameters for classification of goods, as in the present case by referring to classification under IS 1460:2005, it is incumbent upon the Authorities to ensure that necessary facilities are made available for testing of any disputed article on all these parameters as otherwise, laying down such parameters would be meaningless. Hence, to avoid these difficulties, doubts and uncertainties in future, the respondents are directed to ensure that proper facilities are made available in the appropriate laboratories for undertaking tests for all these parameters or at least for those parameters ....