TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 587
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s and for this purpose they had filed various Bills of Entry (B/E) during the disputed period commencing from 02.02.2018 to 31.03.2021, declaring the imported goods as "Rough Dolomite Blocks" and by classifying it under Customs Tariff Item (CTI) 2518 1000 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The appellants had also claimed the benefit of duty exemption under Notification No. 50/2017-Customs dated 30.06.2017 (Sr. No. 120) for Basic Custom Duty (BCD) in excess of 5% and Notification No. 01/2017-Integrated Tax Rate dated 28.06.2017 for IGST in excess of 5%. 2.2 An intelligence was gathered by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit (DRI) indicating that the appellants importer M/s Shri Parasnath Exports was importing Rough Marble blocks classified under Custom Tariff Heading No. 2515, by mis-declaring it as 'rough dolomite block/dolomite block' and misclassifying the same under Custom Tariff Heading No.2518 1000 as well as wrongly availing the exemption from payment of BCD and IGST. Intelligence gathered further indicated that the goods declared as rough dolomite block were actually rough marble block and the same should be classi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... imported by the appellants were 'rough marble block' in the guise of 'dolomite block' and the same should be rightly classifiable under CTH 2515 1210 and are liable to be charged with BCD of 40% and IGST of 12%. 2.5 On completion of investigation, based on the above documents and on the basis of the test reports of samples drawn from similar goods imported by the aforesaid three importers, other documentary evidences collected by DRI, show cause notice dated 27.02.2023 was issued to the appellants seeking for the following action: (i) the declared description of the goods as "Rough Dolomite Blocks" should not be rejected and held as "Rough Marble Blocks"; (ii) the declared classification under CTH 2518 1000 should not be rejected and re-classified under CTH 2515 1210 of the Customs Tariff Act; (iii) the imported goods valued at Rs. 4,02,27,589/- should not be confiscated under Sections 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962(for short, referred to as the "Act of 1962"); (iv) differential customs duty of Rs.2,03,16,943/- should not be demanded under Section 28(4) of the Act of 1962 by invoking extended period of limitation and the amount of Rs.25,00,0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....12.2019; 6691676 dated 30.01.2020 and 7038144 dated 27.02.2020, representative samples were drawn by the Department at the time of import and were sent for chemical examination by the Deputy Chief Chemist (DYCC), Customs Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL), JNCH. In their test reports, it had been confirmed that the imported goods are composed of carbonates of calcium and magnesium together with trace amount of iron and silicious matter having composition 'dolomite'. Therefore, he claimed that the samples of imported goods in respect of other importers cannot form the basis for classification of the goods imported by the appellants particularly when specific test reports are available for impugned goods. Since it is the prerogative of the department to test and satisfy the imported goods before its clearance, he claimed that even in two B/Es where they had not tested the goods the importer cannot be held responsible for the same. The appellants having declared the goods as per the invoice, the representative samples of imported goods have been tested and after examination/ verification under first-check basis, the imported goods were assessed to import duty as 'dolomite', the learne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rough Dolomite Blocks' as claimed by the appellants; or, is it classifiable under CTI 2515 1210 described as 'Rough Marble Blocks' as determined in the impugned order, for deciding on appropriate levy of customs duty; and to decide whether the alleged mis-declaration of description, wrongful classification and claim of exemption, and consequently ordering confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty on appellants in the impugned order is sustainable or otherwise. 7.1 In the impugned order, learned Commissioner of Customs had come to the conclusion of mis-classification and consequently confirmed all the proposals made in the SCN on the basis of following findings: "4.11.2 In view of the above referred consistent judicial pronouncements, the importance of statements rendered under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 during the case is quite imperative. I find that the statements made in the case were voluntary and are very much valid in Law and can be relied upon as having full evidentiary value. 4.12. I find that the noticee no.1 & 2 in their written submission, have requested for cross examination of the officers of DRI, officers of DYCC Laboratory and off....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ical analysis of the sample along with response of queries confirmed that "the blocks or hard and capable of taking polish and can be used as marble slab, blocks or compact in nature of white-colour; that the rock is a metamorphic rock, essentially composed of calcite/dolomite having specific gravity 2.68 to 2.77 formed from Dolomitic limestone". The Geological Survey of India, Western Region, Jaipur confirmed that "as per the physical property and based on petrography, chemical composition and the specific gravity data, the sample makes the specification of marble". 4.27 Further I find from the evidence is available in the form of Export Declaration (Customs Declaration) filed at low port by overseas supplier, Material Receipt Note issued by overseas supplier, MBL/HBL issued by Shipping Lines and Forwarder, Invoice issued by M/s Shri Parasnath Exports for supply of goods in domestic market, purchase orders placed by various buyers and statement of Customs broker, it is evident that goods imported by M/s Shri Parasnath Exports were 'Rough Marble Blocks'. Further, as per literature of the marble, editions released by Government of India, Ministry of Mines, Indian Bureau of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hereunder for consideration of proper and appropriate classification of the subject goods under dispute. "Section 12. Dutiable goods. - (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, duties of customs shall be levied at such rates as may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51 of 1975), or any other law for the time being in force, on goods imported into, or exported from, India. (2) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall apply in respect of all goods belonging to Government as they apply in respect of goods not belonging to Government." "Section 1. Short title, extent and commencement. - (1) This Act may be called the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. (2) It extends to the whole of India. (3) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint. Section 2. Duties specified in the Schedules to be levied. - The rates at which duties of customs shall be levied under the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), are specified in the First and Second Schedules. xxx xxx xxx xxx THE FIRST SCHEDULE -....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the material or component which gives them their essential character, in so far as this criterion is applicable. (c) When goods cannot be classified by reference to (a) or (b), they shall be classified under the heading which occurs last in numerical order among those which equally merit consideration. 4. Goods which cannot be classified in accordance with the above rules shall be classified under the heading appropriate to the goods to which they are most akin. 5. In addition to the foregoing provisions, the following rules shall apply in respect of the goods referred to therein: (a) Camera cases, musical instrument cases, gun cases, drawing instrument cases, necklace cases and similar containers, specially shaped or fitted to contain a specific article or set of articles, suitable for long-term use and presented with the articles for which they are intended, shall be classified with such articles when of a kind normally sold therewith. This rule does not, however, apply to containers which give the whole its essential character; (b) Subject to the provisions of (a) above, packing materials and packing containers presented with the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns accompanied by a six-digit number and includes all tariff items the first six-digits of which correspond to that number; (c) "tariff item" means a description of goods in the list of tariff provisions accompanying eight digit number and the rate of customs duty; (2) the list of tariff provisions is divided into Sections, Chapters and Sub-Chapters; (3) in column (3), the standard unit of quantity is specified for each tariff item to facilitate the collection, comparison and analysis of trade statistics." 8.2 From plain reading of the above legal provisions, it transpires that in order to determine the appropriate duties of customs payable on any imported goods, one has to make an assessment of the imported goods for its correct classification under the First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act by duly following the General Rules for Interpretation (GIR) and the General Explanatory notes (GEN) contained therein. The First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 specifies the various categories of imported goods in a systematic and well-considered manner, in accordance with an international ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ystallization), but not products that have been roasted, calcined, obtained by mixing or subjected to processing beyond that mentioned in each heading. The products of this Chapter may contain an added anti-dusting agent, provided that such addition does not render the product particularly suitable for specific use rather than for general use. 2.This Chapter does not cover : (a) sublimed sulphur, precipitated sulphur and colloidal sulphur (heading 2802); (b) earth colours containing 70% or more by weight of combined iron evaluated as Fe2O3 (heading 2821); (c) medicaments and other products of Chapter 30; (d) perfumery, cosmetic or toilet preparations (Chapter 33); (e) setts, curbstones and flagstones (heading 6801); mosaic cubes or the like (heading 6802); roofing, facing or damp course slates (heading 6803); (f) precious or semi-precious stones (heading 7102 or 7103); (g) cultured crystals (other than optical elements) weighing not less than 2.5g each, of sodium chloride or of magnesium oxide, of heading 3824; optical elements of sodium chloride or of magnesium oxide (heading 9001); (h) billi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....analysis of the appropriate Chapter heading and its sub-headings under which the impugned goods are covered as per the Customs Tariff and then classifying the impugned product under the corresponding Sub-heading, Tariff Item. Now, we may closely examine the scope of the contending classification for determining correct classification of the imported goods. As the scope of goods covered under CTI 2515 1210 relates to "--- Blocks" under the heading "- Marble and Travertine" and of sub-heading 2515 10, these are marble or travertine stones, which are merely cut into blocks. Whereas, the scope of CTI 2518 1000 covers Dolomite, blocks or slabs, which are not calcined and sintered. These two entries are covering different items and the nature of imported goods have to be examined in order properly classify it under appropriate classification. In terms of the notes to the Section V/Chapter 25, there is no definition provided either for marble blocks or dolomite blocks. Therefore, in order to understand the scope of terms "marble", "dolomite", there is a need to have recourse to any other reliable definition having force equal to the one that may be prescribed in respect of goods covered u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2020&Lab Report No.2438/19-20 dt.3.3.2020 (Contd.) 8.6 On careful perusal of all the above seven test reports of the representative samples of imported goods, it has been categorically stated by the Chemical Examiners of CRCL, DYCC laboratory that these goods are "composed of carbonates of calcium and magnesium i.e., Dolomite." Further, in some reports the percentage composition of calcium carbonate and magnesium carbonate have also been given as CaCo3 - 58.1% & MgCo3 - 41.1% for goods covered under B/E No.4030330 dated 11.07.2019; CaCo3 - 59.3% & MgCo3 - 39.3% for goods covered under B/E No.5108003 dated 30.09.2019; and CaCo3 - 55.8% & MgCo3 - 42.7% for goods covered under B/E No.6245982 dated 26.12.2019. In the HSN explanatory notes which is relied upon in the impugned order, it has been mentioned that 'marble' is hard-calcareous stone, homogeneous and fine grained, known by presence of mineral oxides; whereas, 'dolomite' is crude or calcined and sintered comprising of magnesium and calcium oxides. The seven test reports as extracted above clearly provide the composition as carbonates of calcium and magnesium. The composition of the tested samples also confirm to the presence....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elow: "4.2 From the above detailed finding which is based on test reports of the department's own Central Excise and Customs Laboratory, Vadodara as well as independent Central Government Organization namely Geological Survey of India the Adjudicating Authority has decided that in respect of the goods imported by the assessee against 8 bills of entry out of 9 bills of entry is Rough Dolomite Blocks classifiable under 25181000. Revenue in the grounds of appeal heavily relied upon the email correspondences with the supplier which was contended by the Revenue that the assessee has instructed the supplier to change the description of the goods from Marble to Dolomite which shows that the goods is marble and not dolomite. In this regard, we find that consignments were cleared after conducting the chemical test by the laboratory. Moreover, from the email correspondences it does not suggest that the assessee has any mala fide intention or it has not been established that the assessee has instructed to mis-declare the goods in the supplier invoice for the reason that when in the test report it has come out that the goods are dolomite even the instruction of the assessee is abs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ussions in paras supra and the evidences on record, I am left with no option but to conclude that the goods imported by the Importer M/s. NITCO ltd. vide Bills of Entry covered in the two Show Cause Netices, except the Bill of Entry No. 3269532 dated 16.09.2017, are nothing but 'Dolomite Blocks' classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading No.25181000 and liable to applicable Customs Duty as per the said Customs Tariff Heading. 35.2 In view of my above findings, out of the demand raised vide show Cause Notice F.No.VIII/10-28/Commr./O&A/2021-22 dated 08.08.2022 for Customs Duty of Rs. 1,29,15,992/- involved in the goods imported under five Bills of Entry, demand for Rs.86,72,420/-(Eighty Six Lakhs Seventy Two Thousand Four Hundred and Twenty only) involved in the four Bills of Entry (appearing at Sr.Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 of Annexure-A to the Show Cause Notice) is required be dropped and demand of differential Customs Duty of Rs. 42,43,572/- involved in the Bill of Entry No.3269532 dated 16.09.2017 (appearing at Sr.No. 4 of Annexure-A to the Show Cause Notice) is required to be confirmed. Further, demand raised vide Show Cause Notice No.103/2022- 23/Pr.Commr./Gr.1% IA/CAC/J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....if available in the matter of classification. In this case only because the test report is not available with the assessee, burden to prove the correct classification cannot be shifted from department to assessee. It is settled law that burden to prove the classification as claimed by the revenue is on the revenue and not on the assessee. Moreover, in the facts of the present case when out of 9 consignment in respect of 8 consignments when the test reports are in favour of the assessee, it cannot be presumed that in respect of one bill of entry dated 16.09.2017, the goods is different from the goods of other 8 bills of entry. It was found that the common description was declared in respect of all 9 bills of entry and in respect of 8 bills of entry where the test reports are available, it has been established that the goods are dolomite blocks and not marble blocks. In this fact and circumstances the adjudicating authority is not correct in classifying the goods as claimed by the revenue under 25151210. As regard the principle of burden to prove in the matter of classification to be first discharged by the department, we rely upon the following judgments:- (a) In the case o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eration. This has to be taken along with the assertion made in Ext. P2 by the 1st respondent wherein it is stated in paragraph 2 that block or crump rubber produced in the petitioner's factory is liable for Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioner has filed detailed objections, evidenced by Exts. P3 and P5. In Ext. P3 the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the Appellate Collector who has gone through the matter very exhaustively. It is also worthy to note that a Division Bench of this Court in O.P. No. 1770 of 1975 and connected cases directed that there will be a full-fledged enquiry in the matter after giving the petitioners a full and fair opportunity to substantiate their contentions. Notwithstanding all these, it is surprising that the respondents even without a proper investigation and adjudication as to whether the block or crump rubber produced in the petitioner's factory is liable for Central Excise duty under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excise tariff have been repeatedly asking the petitioner to furnish certain details in connection therewith. If the particular item produced in the petitioner's fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed." (c) In the case of Tata Exports Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.- 1985 (22) E.L.T. 732 (M.P.), the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh have given the following finding:- "4. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth Mills - 1977 (1) E.L.T (J 199) (S.C.) = AIR 1963 S.C. 791 has held that manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use. Relying on this decision, the Supreme Court in South Behar Sugar Mills v. Tata Chemicals - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 336) = AIR 1968 S.C. 922 further held that there must be such a transformation that a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use. In Sandoz India Ltd. v. Union of India - 1980 (6) E.L.T. 696 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the processing of the physical form from a solid state to a liquid state by the addition of dispersing agents and water did not result in manufacture as there was no change in the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Fertilizer Control Order, Glossary of Terms used in the Fertilizer Trade and Industry as well as the specific wording of Notification No. 164/69, there is hardly any justification for going into the end use of the product in question. We cannot also lightly brush aside the argument that if at all there was any doubt as regards the alternative classification, then as per accepted principles, a specific tariff entry is to be preferred to the general entry and also the view favourable to the assessee will have to be accepted. We are also quite clear that the allegation of suppression of facts that is now being made in the course of arguments, is wholly untenable. This allegation is not contained in the show cause notices and in view of regular submission of classification lists, we find that there is no substance in the allegation that there has been suppression of facts by the assessee. In this view of the matter, we agree that the demands of duty would also be essentially barred by limitation. However, this issue is largely academic, in view of the fact that the goods in question are being held to be fully covered by the exemption Notification No. 164/69." In view of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... In view of above extended period under section 28(4) of Customs Act is not invokable in the present case as there is no suppression or mis-statement. 5.7 Without prejudice to above, we find that demand of customs duty of past imports under Annexure B and C to SCN is also not sustainable on the ground that goods were not tested by department in respect of past imports in respect of which demand is made in Annexure-B and C to SCN. It is settled position of law that each Bill of entry is a separate assessment and test report of one bill of entry cannot be made applicable to the goods imported under another bill of entry. Each consignment must be assessed separately, especially for natural mined rocks, where properties vary significantly. Further, foreign suppliers analysis reports clearly provides dolomite as 92% to 99%. Further, goods from very same foreign suppliers were tested and found as dolomite by other customs laboratories and Geological survey of India, Nagpur. Reliance is placed upon decision in case of Shalimar Paints Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2001 (134) E.L.T. 285 (Tri.-Cal) wherein Hon'ble CESTAT held has under: "7. The first grievance of the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y be of the same composition, by itself does not establish that the previous consignments were admittedly of the same composition. The expression used by the deponent is 'may be' and he himself was not sure of the same fact. The composition of the fabrics may vary or change from the consignment to consignment inasmuch as there is not much difference in the wool content of the fabrics. Revenue has not given us any reason as to why the ratio of Tribunal's decision in the case of Shalimar Paints (supra) which stands upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is not applicable to the facts of the present case. Apart from the decision of Shalimar Paints, we note that there are number of other precedent decisions holding to the same effect." 5.9 We find that in the present case department has not discharged the burden of prove with regards to change of classification of goods in respect of Annexure-B and C. We have dealt with similar issue in case of NITCO Limited v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad in appeal No. 10277 of 2023 wherein we held as under: As regard the principle of burden to prove in the matter of classification to be first discharged ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aragraph 7 it is repeated that Exts. P3 and P5 are still pending for consideration. This has to be taken along with the assertion made in Ext. P2 by the 1st respondent wherein it is stated in paragraph 2 that block or crump rubber produced in the petitioner's factory is liable for Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff. The petitioner has filed detailed objections, evidenced by Exts. P3 and P5. In Ext. P3 the petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the Appellate Collector who has gone through the matter very exhaustively. It is also worthy to note that a Division Bench of this Court in O.P. No. 1770 of 1975 and connected cases directed that there will be a full-fledged enquiry in the matter after giving the petitioners a full and fair opportunity to substantiate their contentions. Notwithstanding all these, it is surprising that the respondents even without a proper investigation and adjudication as to whether the block or crump rubber produced in the petitioner's factory is liable for Central Excise duty under Tariff Item No. 68 of the Central Excise tariff have been repeatedly asking the petitioner to furnish certain details in conne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ould furnish certain details asked for. The procedure adopted is unwarranted." (c) In the case of Tata Exports Ltd. v. Union of India - 1985 (22) E.L.T. 732 (M.P.), the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh have given the following finding:- "4. The Supreme Court in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth Mills - 1977 (1) E.L.T (J 199) (S.C.) = AIR 1963 S.C. 791 has held that manufacture implies a change, but every change is not manufacture and yet every change of an article is the result of treatment, labour and manipulation. But something more is necessary and there must be transformation; a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use. Relying on this decision, the Supreme Court in South Behar Sugar Mills v. Tata Chemicals - 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 336) = AIR 1968 S.C. 922 further held that there must be such a transformation that a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use. In Sandoz India Ltd. v. Union of India - 1980 (6) E.L.T. 696 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the processing of the physical form from a solid state to a liquid state by the addition of dispersing agents and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o discharge this burden. In view of the definitions contained in the Fertilizer Control Order, Glossary of Terms used in the Fertilizer Trade and Industry as well as the specific wording of Notification No. 164/69, there is hardly any justification for going into the end use of the product in question. We cannot also lightly brush aside the argument that if at all there was any doubt as regards the alternative classification, then as per accepted principles, a specific tariff entry is to be preferred to the general entry and also the view favourable to the assessee will have to be accepted. We are also quite clear that the allegation of suppression of facts that is now being made in the course of arguments, is wholly untenable. This allegation is not contained in the show cause notices and in view of regular submission of classification lists, we find that there is no substance in the allegation that there has been suppression of facts by the assessee. In this view of the matter, we agree that the demands of duty would also be essentially barred by limitation. However, this issue is largely academic, in view of the fact that the goods in question are being held to be fully covered ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any matter stated in the certificate. In the present case, we find that the provisions of Section 138C of the Act were not complied with to use the computer printouts as evidence. It is noted that the certificate was not prepared during the seizure of the electronic devices, as required under the law. The investigation is normally started after collecting the intelligence/information from various sources. The investigating officers procure the evidences in the nature of documents, statements, etc., to establish the truth. During the evolution of technology, the electronic devices were used as evidence. In this context, the law is framed to follow the procedure, while using the electronic devices as evidence for authenticity of the documents, which would be examined by the adjudicating authority during adjudication proceedings. In the instant case, it is found that the entire case proceeded on the basis of the electronic documents as evidence. But the investigating officers had not taken pain to comply with the provisions of the law to establish the truthfulness of the documents and merely proceeded on the basis of the statements. Hence, the evidence of electronic devices, as relied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the source and authenticity, which are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc., without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice. 16. Only if the electronic record, is duly produced in terms of Section 65B of the Evidence Act, would the question arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to Section 45A - opinion of Examiner of Electronic Evidence. 17. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India. ........................................... 22. The evidence relating to electronic record, as noted hereinbefore, being a special provision, the general law on secondary evidence under section 63 read with Section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same. Generalia speciali bus non derogant, special law will always prevail over the general law. It appears, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other electronic devices in respect of which the requirement of Section 138C(2) ibid has not been satisfied. On this ground, the impugned order suffers from uncurable error and hence, is liable to be set aside. xxx xxx xxx xxx 13. We also noticed that the Adjudicating authority in order to justify the under valuation, has relied upon the statements of partners of the appellant's company. However, the Appellant has objected to such reliance, as the statements were retracted. The Appellant has pleaded that retracted statements cannot be accepted as evidence for confirmation of demand. The adjudicating authority in the impugned order has chosen not to consider the retraction. We are of the view that the said approach of the adjudicating authority is incorrect. Be that as it may, we note that statements cannot be the sole reason to confirm the charge of undervaluation. We also note that in the present matter there are no evidences produced by the department that the excess amount over and above the invoice price was paid to suppliers. There is no evidence as to how the Appellant came into possession of cash alleged to be differential amount towards goods imported....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the basis of the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the identical facts of the case and on the basis of judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court quoted above, we are of the considered view that different stand cannot be taken by this Bench, on the identical factual matrix of the case arising from same investigation on similar importers, for deciding the issues differently. Therefore, we find that the impugned order dated 05.02.2025, revising the classification of imported goods under CTI 2515 1210 and confirmation of adjudged demands, confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on the appellants does not stand the scrutiny of law. 11. In the result, the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of Customs is set aside and the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed in their favour, with consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Order pronounced in open court on 08.06.2026) ============= Document 1 IS : 1130 - 1969 TABLE 1 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF MARBLE ( Clause 7.1 ) SL. No. CHARACTERISTIC REQUIREMENT METHOD OF TEST (1) (2) (3) (4) i) Moisture absorption after 24 hours immersion in cold water Max 0-4% by weight IS : 1124-195....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ... No. 1706 I Lab Date 16.7.19 Examined ID TEST RESULT The sample is in the form of dull white hard broken piece of irregular shape & size. It is composed of carbonates of calcium and magnisum together TECHNICAL OPINION with trace amount of iron & blicious matter having composition (Dolomite). Cally=58.1% Mgco == 41.1% A/s may be collected within 15 days. Redwas 18/7/19 Analysed and.returned to the Asitt. Commissionor on and the Result/Technical Opinion as above, Remnant Sample Fully Consumad/rietaubed/Returned Algum 1) 8/7/19 ALEYAMMA A. J. Chemical Examiner Gr .- I JNCH Laboratory Nhava Sheva Date Chemical Examiner/Dy. Chiel Chemist. Document 4 BK: 4580571 DH- 21/08/19 951-9/19 SXEST REPORT Test Report No. 3055/19-2040 I TR Date 22/08/19 Lab No. 1952 2 Lab Date 26/8/19 Examined ID Test Result The sample is in the form of while rough cutting blocks. It is composed of carbonates of calcium & Magnesium (Oconvite) along with small amount of Silica, Aluminium Tec ... iical Opinion R/] may be collected within Fortright LAde KÉPEK DE Chemical assistant Analyzed and returned to the Asstt. Commissioner on And the Result/Technical Opinion as....