Page 295 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] BIRD RETAIL PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), NEW DELHI 277

would work as complete Segway product. It has also categorically been opined
by the Chartered Engineer who in his report dated 1 August 2016 has categorical-
ly certified that the various assemblies which have been imported by the appel-
lant, such as, transmission assembly, power base assembly (without batteries),
wheel assembly with tyre and info key etc. were imported in the form of the as-
semblies not in the knocked down condition and the final product namely Seg-
way can be made just by attaching these assemblies with the simple screw driver
technology. Thus, it proved without any doubt that what has been imported by
the appellant were various assemblies, such as, transmission assembly, power
base assembly etc. to make a product called Segway. Thus, it can be seen that the
correct classification for the product imported in the CKD condition as is the case
in this particular appeal, same need to be classified under Chapter sub-heading
8711 90 91. We have also analyzed the declaration which have been made by the
appellant while making import of various complete assemblies of various com-
ponents of Segway and find that the classification adopted by the appellant was
under CTH 8714 99 90, which primarily pertains to parts and accessories of the
vehicles of heading classifiable under 8711 to 8713. Since it has already been es-
tablished with the help of an expert that the components imported by the appel-
lant while put together will form a complete operative Segway product. We,
therefore, feel that classification claim by the appellant while getting clearance of
the consignment appears to be not correct. Since the technical person has given
his categorical finding that what has been imported by the appellant were the
Segway product in the CKD condition and the appellant did not have any evi-
dence to contradict the finding of the technical expert, we are inclined to accept
the opinion expressed by the technical expert. We also take support of a decision
given by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inter Continental (India) v.
Union of India - 2003 (154) E.L.T. 37 (Guj.) to rely on the expert opinion. The rele-
vant extract of the above decision is reproduced here below
“19. Mr. Patel during the course of discussion referred to the provisions of
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 as well as Rules thereunder with
special reference to Sec. 6 of the said Act and Rule 5 which defines stand-
ards of quality on various articles as specified in Appendix “B” to the Rules.
Our attention was invited to various standards set out in Appendix “B” to
urge that only slight difference was there between the different kinds of oils
for the purpose of ascertaining whether oil was of edible grade or not. It is
not necessary for our purpose to deal with the various technical aspects laid
down in Appendix “B” for the simple reason that it is an admitted position
between the parties that when the imported goods entered territorial waters
of India, the Boarding Officer had drawn samples of the product for test in
the presence of the representative of the Master of Vessel, the Shipping
Agent and representative of the Importer; and such samples had been sent
for testing to the Chemical Examiner, Customs House, Kandla, who has
opined that the same does not conform specification for crude palm oil (ed-
ible grade) as per IS-8323-E-1977. It appears that the said sample was also
forwarded through the Referral Hospital and Community Health Centre,
Mundra-Kutch, to the Public Analyst, Food and Drug Laboratory, Vadoda-
ra for opinion. He has opined to the effect that the sample conforms to the
standards and provisions laid down under the Prevention of Food Adulter-
ation Rules, 1955, for palm oil and cannot be used as such for human con-
sumption. Therefore, once the competent authority who is technically quali-
fied to tender opinion in relation to the technical standards prescribed un-

EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  295