ORDER

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length.

2. In pursuance of license issued to the appellant in the year 1985, the appellant imported cardboard sheets. It was contended by the Assistant Collector of Customs that samples of the imported goods had been taken and referred to the Chief Chemist, Central Revenue Control Board, New Delhi and the Institute of Paper Technology, Saharanpur for verifying whether cardboard sheets were ivory boards . After receipt of the report and after adjudicating the matter by final order dated 4th November, 1986, the Collector passed the order confiscating the goods and gave the above to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption of fine of Rs.47,000/- by holding that imported goods were ivory boards and not cardboards. Against that judgment and order, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CHGAT) which was also dismissed by order dated 8th February, 1992. That order is challenged in this appeal.

3. Admittedly, in this case for arriving at the conclusion that imported goods were ivory boards, authorities have relied upon the certificate dated 11th August, 1986 issued by the Chief Chemist Central Revenue. The relevant part of the said certificate is reproduced for its appreciation:

"Each of the four samples is a white rigid paperboard with smooth, bright but non-gloss surfaces. Each is made of layers of paper pasted together, Each is composed of chemical pulp. Each is appreciably translucent and possesses a uniform look through showing a very even distribution of the pulp. Since the samples possess all the qualities mentioned for Ivory Board in books available here, each can be considered as having the characteristics of Ivory Board.

Lab No. Weight per sq. metre.

CLO-22 (A) 385.6 gms.

CLO-23 (B) 295.7 gms.

CLO-24 (C) 292.3 gms.

CLO-27 (F) 298.3 gms.

"CLO-25 & 26 (D & E)

Each of the two samples is in the form of white rigid board with very smooth and glossy surfaces. Each is made of layers of paper. Each is composed of chemical pulp. Each is coat on both the surfaces with siliceous matter. Each has characteristics of Art Board. Each is other than Ivory Board, since Ivory Board is not known to be coated and glazed.

4. Undisputedly, the appellant s sample was item c . For samples D & E the Chief Chemist has specifically stated that Ivory Board is not known to be coated and glazed

5. As against this, head of the Paper Department of the Institute of the Paper Technology, University of Roorkee, Saharanpur has stated that samples B .& E are coated on both sides while samples A, B, C, F are uncoated. The relevant part of the Report is as under:

"Board, coated on one or both sides, which produces a smoothly surface capable of taking a very high finish and is used primarily for printing from fine screen half tone blocks, is termed as Art Board.

Samples D & E are coated on both sides while A, B, C & F are uncoated.

As per the definitions given above, samples D & E can be termed as Art Board and samples marked as A, B, C & F can be termed as Ivory Board."

6. From the aforesaid Report, one thing is clear that imported boards were uncoated. Still, however, both the authorities have arrived at the conclusion that they can be termed as Ivory Board. Relying upon these opinions, the tribunal as well as the Collector arrived at the conclusion that appellant has imported Ivory board.

7. As against this, the learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is total misconception with regard to the imported goods. For this purpose, he referred to the definition of Ivory board given by I.S.I. (Indian Standards Glossary of Terms) wherein Ivory Board is given the following meaning;

"Ivory Board - A coated board generally used for visiting cards, menu cards and similar products. The coating is applied to both sides. It is generally above 150g/m2 consisting of one or more plies (see Ply ); may or