2015 (12) TMI 1635 - AT - Customs

Denial of benefit of N/N. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002 (S. No. 200) - classification of goods - Heavy Melting Scrap - The authorities below classified the goods as Rerollable scrap as against declared description of Heavy Melting Scrap - Held that - the material cannot be rerolled without cutting does not hold much water as they have cited no authority to say that the maximum length of rerollable material cannot exceed 2000 mm. The Commissioner has cited ISRI circular as authority for the size of the heavy melting scrap. The claim of the appellant that they used the material for melting does not hold much water. Firstly it is unsubstantiated and secondly, if the material as imported was rerollable scrap, the use to which it is put after import, does not change its character for assessment at the time of import - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods as Rerollable scrap instead of Heavy Melting Scrap, denial of Notification benefit, duty imposition, reliance on expert opinions, length restrictions for rerolling, suitability for remelting, authority for restrictions on rerollable scrap, actual use of material for melting.

Analysis:
1. Classification Dispute: The Tribunal addressed the classification dispute where the imported goods were classified as Rerollable scrap instead of Heavy Melting Scrap, resulting in the denial of Notification benefit and imposition of duty at a rate of 5%. The appellants challenged this classification before the Tribunal.

2. Expert Opinions: The Tribunal considered conflicting expert opinions regarding the nature of the imported goods. The first expert, Shri Chandok, described the goods as round bars, square bars, billets, flats, and plates of various dimensions. The second expert, Shri Soni, highlighted that the goods were cut pieces from prime material and expressed concerns about the length of the material for rerolling.

3. Length Restrictions: The issue of length restrictions for rerolling was raised, with Shri Soni stating that some pieces exceeded 2000 mm in length, making rerolling without cutting challenging. However, the appellants failed to provide any authority supporting such length restrictions for rerollable scrap.

4. Suitability for Remelting: The expert opinions differed on the suitability of the goods for rerolling or remelting. Shri Soni and Shri Bagchi suggested that remelting to recover alloying elements for suitable alloy steel grades might be more appropriate due to the characteristics of the material.

5. Authority and Usage: The Tribunal examined the lack of authority cited by the appellants regarding length restrictions for rerollable scrap and the claim of using the material for melting. The Tribunal emphasized that the character of the imported goods for assessment remains unchanged based on their post-import usage.

6. Decision: After reviewing the contentions and expert opinions, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, finding no merit in the challenges raised by the appellants regarding the classification and assessment of the imported goods. The Tribunal upheld the classification of the goods as Rerollable scrap and the imposition of duty accordingly.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the classification of imported goods, reliance on expert opinions, length restrictions for rerolling, suitability for remelting, and the impact of post-import usage on the assessment of goods. The decision highlighted the importance of providing substantiated arguments and authority in challenging classification disputes and affirmed the authority's classification of the goods as Rerollable scrap.