2000 (10) TMI 340 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported machine - Tool Room Precision Co-ordinate Jig Boring Machine or Universal Tool Room Milling and Boring Machine.
2. Allegations of misdeclaration and duty evasion.
3. Reliance on expert opinions and denial of cross-examination.
4. Confiscation of goods, penalty imposition, and denial of Notification benefits.

Classification of Imported Machine:
The case involved a dispute over whether the imported machine was a "Tool Room Precision Co-ordinate Jig Boring Machine" as claimed by the importer or a "Universal Tool Room Milling and Boring Machine" as asserted by Customs authorities. The Collector's order, based on an expert opinion, concluded that the machine did not meet the criteria for a Jig Boring Machine. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the expert opinion, highlighting the lack of responses to queries and denial of cross-examination. Consequently, the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication by an expert nominated by the Director of the Central Machine Tool Institute to determine the machine's classification.

Allegations of Misdeclaration and Duty Evasion:
The Collector issued a show cause notice alleging misdeclaration by the importer to evade duty benefits under the Import Policy and Notification. The notice claimed that specific import licenses were required for the imported machine and accessories. The order confiscated the goods, imposed penalties, and demanded differential duty payments. Both appellants contested the notice, leading to the present appeals challenging the Collector's decision.

Reliance on Expert Opinions and Denial of Cross-Examination:
The Collector relied on an expert's opinion to determine the machine's classification, favoring one expert's view over another without allowing cross-examination. The Tribunal noted discrepancies in the expert opinions and considered the denial of cross-examination as a breach of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to remand the case for fresh adjudication by a neutral expert to ensure a fair assessment.

Confiscation of Goods, Penalty Imposition, and Denial of Notification Benefits:
The Collector's order confiscated the imported goods, imposed penalties, and denied the Notification benefits to the importer based on the disputed classification of the machine. The appellants contested these decisions, leading to the appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, considering the procedural irregularities and lack of clarity in expert opinions, set aside the Collector's order and directed a fresh adjudication on all issues in accordance with legal principles and natural justice, with the expenses of expert assessment to be borne by the importer.