CESTAT Mumbai Dismisses Gamco Appeal In Customs Dispute, Says Imported Marble Slabs Were Actually Limestone

The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Mumbai, has dismissed the appeal filed by Gamco International in a customs classification dispute involving alleged misdeclaration of imported marble slabs. It upheld confiscation, redemption fines, penalties, and denial of exemption after finding that the goods were actually limestone.

The tribunal held that, in this case, there was clear misdeclaration of both the nature and quantity of the imported goods. It said the customs action was justified on that basis.

A bench comprising President Justice Dilip Gupta and Technical Member P. Anjani Kumar relied on the Geological Survey of India (GSI) report. It noted that the report was categorical.

“The sample was of Crystalline Limestone (of IBM specification) and it does not show any evidence of metamorphic recrystallization and thus not a marble"

On that basis, the bench held that “there is clear-cut misdeclaration of the nature of the goods.”

The tribunal rejected the importer's reliance on dictionary meanings of marble. It held that such definitions cannot override the opinion of a technical expert body like the GSI. Since scientific testing showed that the goods were not marble, the declaration in the Bill of Entry was incorrect.

The dispute arose from imports made under advance licences. The goods were declared as rough marble slabs. The issue before the tribunal was whether they were in fact marble or limestone and whether confiscation, penalties, and denial of exemption under a 1992 notfication were justified.

The appellant had filed a Bill of Entry dated September 4, 1996. It sought clearance of 925 square metres of raw marble slabs of Italian origin valued at Rs 10.06 lakh.

During first check examination, customs officers suspected misdeclaration. This was in respect of both quality and quantity. Samples were sent to the GSI, Nagpur for testing.

In its report dated May 6, 1998, the GSI concluded that the sample was crystalline limestone. It said the material was not marble, as it showed no evidence of metamorphic recrystallisation.

A show cause notice was then issued. It proposed confiscation of the declared quantity as well as excess goods found during examination.

The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods. It also imposed redemption fine and penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) later upheld the order.

After earlier remand proceedings, a fresh order was passed in 2015. It again confiscated 925 square metres of declared goods and 204.25 square meters of excess goods. It imposed fines and penalties and denied exemption under the advance licence scheme.

Before the tribunal, the importer argued that marble includes crystalline limestone capable of taking polish. It relied on earlier decisions where GSI reports were held to be inconclusive.

It was also argued that the excess quantity was within permissible tolerance limits for rough marble slabs.

Rejecting these submissions, the tribunal held that those earlier cases were distinguishable. It noted that the reports in those cases were not categorical.

In the present case, the GSI report clearly stated that the goods were limestone and not marble. The bench also found that excess quantity had been correctly detected during the first check examination.

Accordingly, the tribunal upheld the order. 

For Appellant: Advocate Kiran Doiphode, 

For Respondent: C.S. Vinod, Authorised Representative for the Respondent