9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (2) TMI 80 - AT - CustomsClassification The contention of appellant is that the goods were ferrous waste and should have been assessed as such under Heading 72.04 but department can t agree on it Held that appellant contention is correct
Issues: Classification and Valuation of Imported Goods
Classification Issue: The appellant imported sheet metal rest from Germany and sought clearance under Heading 7204 of the Customs Tariff. The Customs authorities, after examination and obtaining an opinion from a Chartered Engineer, classified the goods under Headings 7208 and 7209 instead of 7204. The Assistant Commissioner issued an order confiscating the goods and enhancing their value for assessment purposes. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, stating that the goods were correctly classified based on the expert opinion, which described them as hot/cold rolled sheets. The appellant argued that the goods were ferrous waste and should have been assessed as such, emphasizing that the expert's opinion did not specifically mention hot-rolled or cold-rolled sheets. The appellant contended that the varying dimensions of the pieces indicated they could only be transacted as waste, not sheets. Valuation Issue: The Customs authorities rejected the transaction value of the goods, considering them as ferrous products rather than waste. The appellant argued that the goods were waste, not ferrous products, and therefore, the valuation based on ferrous products was incorrect. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, stating that the goods were not capable of being sold as ferrous products due to their mixed dimensions and rusted condition. As the goods were deemed waste, the valuation based on ferrous products was unjustified. The Tribunal found no legal provision prohibiting the import of ferrous waste, leading to the conclusion that there was no basis for confiscating the consignments. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant, providing consequential relief as necessary.
|
