Gastrade International v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

Gastrade International v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla

the assesses/appellants to get the samples tested to show that these do not conform the specifications and are not HSD does not appear to be reasonable. Thus, shifting of onus to the assesses to prove otherwise appears to be unreasonable and meaningless. (ix) The burden was not on the assessees to demonstrate that non-conformity with the remaining 8 parameters would vitiate the conclusion that the samples were of HSD.

81. The aforesaid difficulties in our opinion can be overcome, if we apply the test of “most akin” as contemplated under Rule 4 of the General Rules for Interpretation referred to above.

82. The real test for classification, according to us, would be as to whether any goods or substance in question is “most akin” or bears the closest resemblance or similarity to any of the specified goods mentioned under the Headings and relative Section or Chapter Notes under the Tariff Act, and not by applying the test of preponderance of probability.

83. By way of illustration, we may explain the position. If an importer classifies the imported goods as “X”, which is disputed by the Customs authority and classifies the same as “Y”, the test would be whether the goods imported are “most akin” to “X” or “Y” in terms of Rule 4 of the aforesaid Rules. The importer may also claim if he so wishes, that the goods are most akin to “Z”, though it may be akin to “Y” also, if such claim is more beneficial to him. Thus, it has to be shown by the Customs Authority that the imported goods bear the most affinity or resemblance or similarity to be “most akin” to the specified goods and not mere similarity or akinness. In other words, the test will be whether the imported goods bear the closest resemblance or similarity with the specified good so that these can be considered to be “most akin” to the specified good. Certainly, the principle of preponderance of probability may fall short of the more heightened test of “most akin” for proper classification. The imported goods may bear resemblance to more than one specified goods, in which event, unless the high degree in the test of preponderance of probability is applied, there may be difficulties in the proper classification. However, the said difficulty may be overcome if the test of “most akin” is applied. If the attributes of the imported goods show that the goods are “most akin” to the

p. 1404

specified goods amongst an array of other specified goods, these imported goods have to be classified as the specified goods with which these goods bear the most resemblance or most akinness. Thus, in our view, application of the principle of preponderance of probability does not provide an accurate test. The more accurate and precise test will be whether the goods in question are “most akin” or most similar to the specified goods, as provided under Rule 4 referred to above.

84. In the present case, as noticed above, the finding of the High Court is based primarily on applying the test of preponderance of probability which may not necessarily fulfil the “most akin” test. The High Court came to the conclusion based on the incomplete test reports and noncommittal opinion of the expert Dr. Gobind Singh who in categorical terms had not stated that the imported goods are HSD. There was no opinion that the imported goods are most similar to HSD to satisfy the test of “most akin”. The definitive opinion and finding that the imported goods are “most akin” to HSD is missing in the reports and opinion for classifying the imported goods as HSD.

85. The oil in question does not fully satisfy the specifications of HSD in terms of IS 1460:2005. Hence, the correct test will be whether the oil/article in issue is most akin to HSD or not for which appropriate scientific evidence in the form of laboratory test reports and opinion of the scientific experts will be of utmost relevance.

86. For the reasons discussed above, as the results of the test are inconclusive, so being the opinion of the expert, we are unable to agree with the conclusion of the High Court. Under the circumstances, the option before this Court is, either to send the imported product again for further tests and obtain the expert opinion atleast to the effect that the imported product is ‘most akin’ to HSD even if it does not fulfil all the parameters under IS 1460:2005 or give a benefit of doubt to the appellants and close the proceedings against the appellants by quashing the impugned orders, since the Revenue/ Customs Authority cannot take action against the appellants based on inconclusive evidence.

87. As far as the first option is concerned, as noted above, though the questioned product was sent for laboratory test in three premier laboratories, these laboratories did not give conclusive finding that

p. 1405

the product is indeed HSD and the expert also could not give a definitive opinion. Further after such a long passage of time we are doubtful whether the oil in question would still retain many of the characteristics and properties which were present at the time of import for an effective testing as aforesaid. Hence, we do not consider it appropriate to direct further testing of the imported product/oil at this point of time and such a retest may be rendered a futile exercise. In our opinion, in the facts and circumstances, it would be more appropriate to give the benefit of doubt to the appellants because of the inconclusive evidence, rather than directing for a fresh testing and seeking fresh expert opinion, as a one-time measure.

88. Before parting with these appeals, we deem it necessary to issue certain ancillary directions. We are 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 which the Authorities consider are of essential character to satisfy the “most akin” test without which the article in issue cannot be properly classified. Accordingly, we direct the respondents to take necessary steps in this regard within a period of six months for proper testing in all the parameters in future.

p. 1406

89. For the reasons discussed above, we allow these appeals by setting aside the impugned common judgment and order dated 20.01.2022 passed in Revenue Tax Appeal No. 297 of 2021, Revenue Tax Appeal No. 298 of 2021 and Revenue Tax Appeal No. 299 of 2021.

90. Appeals are accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Result of the case: Appeals disposed of.