The Mumbai Bench of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has upheld the confiscation of imported stone slabs and dismissed the appeal filed by the importer, holding that the goods were misdeclared as “marble” when they were in fact “limestone” based on a categorical scientific report.
The bench of Justice Dilip Gupta (President) and P. Anjani Kumar (Technical Member) has observed that dictionary meanings cannot override expert scientific analysis conducted by a specialized authority like the GSI. It noted that the report clearly established the absence of metamorphic recrystallization, which is essential to classify limestone as marble.
The case arose from an appeal filed by Gamco International challenging an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), which had affirmed the confiscation of imported goods along with imposition of redemption fine and penalties.
The importer had filed a Bill of Entry in September 1996 for clearance of 925 square meters of rough marble slabs of Italian origin, claiming benefits under advance licences. However, during the first check examination, customs authorities suspected misdeclaration in both the nature and quantity of the goods.
Samples were sent to the Geological Survey of India (GSI), which reported that the goods were crystalline limestone and not marble, as they lacked evidence of metamorphic recrystallization — a key characteristic of marble.
Subsequently, proceedings were initiated leading to confiscation of the declared quantity as well as excess goods found during inspection, along with imposition of fines and penalties.
The appellant contended that the definition of marble in common parlance includes crystalline limestone capable of taking polish. The GSI report was not conclusive and did not apply proper parameters such as those under the HSN classification. The dispute was essentially one of classification and interpretation, and therefore penalties should not be imposed. Excess quantity found should be condoned in line with Tribunal precedents allowing variation in marble imports.
Rejecting these arguments, the Tribunal placed significant reliance on the GSI report, describing it as a categorical and scientific determination that the goods were limestone and not marble.
The Tribunal also examined cross-examination of GSI experts and found that their testimony consistently ruled out the possibility of metamorphism in the samples. The experts maintained that the goods did not exhibit characteristics required to qualify as marble.
The Tribunal held that there was clear misdeclaration of both nature and quantity of goods. The excess quantity detected further supported the Revenue’s case. Confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine were justified. Penalties were warranted due to deliberate misdeclaration.
The Tribunal upheld denial of exemption under Notification No. 203/92, noting that the advance licence permitted import of marble, not limestone.
The appellant had relied on earlier Tribunal rulings where GSI reports were considered inconclusive. However, the Bench distinguished those cases, emphasizing that in the present matter, the GSI report was clear and unequivocal, leaving no ambiguity regarding classification.
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the confiscation, fines, and penalties imposed on the importer.
Case Details
Case Title: Gamco International Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Export-I
Citation: JURISHOUR-1025-CES-2026(MUM)
Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 87660 of 2016
Date: 27.04.2026
Counsel For Appellant: Kiran Doiphode, Advocate
Counsel For Respondent: C.S. Vinod, Authorised Representative
