1999 (11) TMI 761 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original confiscating goods as not qualifying as bushelling scrap, imposing fines and penalties, and determining duty as applicable to steel sheets.

Analysis:
The appellant contested the decision of the Commissioner of Customs, arguing that most of the imported goods qualified as scrap, specifically bushelling scrap. The appellant highlighted the sizes and conditions of the imported items, emphasizing that they should be considered scrap based on international standards and Bureau of Indian Standards. The appellant also pointed out the failure to consult the National Metallurgical Laboratory for a technical opinion, which they claimed led to a denial of justice.

The Departmental Representative (DR) countered the appellant's arguments by stating that the goods did not meet the definition of scrap under the Customs Tariff Act, as they appeared usable as sheets for purposes other than melting scrap. The DR referenced a previous Tribunal decision to support this stance.

In response, the appellant distinguished the present case from the cited Tribunal decision, emphasizing the smaller dimensions of the imported items and the lack of evidence showing their use for purposes other than melting scrap. The appellant criticized the order for being presumptive and lacking a clear finding on the usability of the items as sheets.

The Tribunal reviewed the submissions and records, concluding that the application of the scrap definition needed to be objective and clear. They noted the ambiguity in the order regarding the usability of the items and the failure to consider obtaining a technical opinion from the National Metallurgical Laboratory. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the order and remanded the matter to the original authority for reconsideration, directing them to obtain technical opinions, consider international standards, and review the previous Tribunal decision.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed for remand, and the original authority was instructed to conduct new proceedings promptly, providing the appellants with a personal hearing.