2011 (1) TMI 1002 - AT - Customs

Application for stay - assessing authority doubted the correctness of the importer s declaration of prime quality - Chartered Engineer certified the goods to be prime quality of stainless steel of hot rolled coils grade 304 and ruled out secondary or defective or non-standard material - Held that - Considering the fact that the inspection of the goods by an approved Chartered Engineer was held as permitted by the assessing authority but no representative of the department could witness the proceedings of the Chartered Engineer, thus the Chartered Engineer should conduct a reexamination of the goods in the presence of the respondent and representatives of the department and submit a report to the assessing authority.

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of operation of the impugned order sought by the department.
2. Discrepancy in the quality of imported goods - 'stainless steel hot rolled coils of grade 304 of prime quality'.
3. Rejection of Chartered Engineer's certificate by the assessing authority.
4. Subsequent examination by the Dy. Commissioner of Customs and a committee of officers confirming defective nature of the goods.
5. Lack of departmental representation during the initial inspection by the Chartered Engineer.
6. Decision to remand the case for reexamination by the Chartered Engineer in the presence of both parties.

Analysis:
1. The department filed an application seeking a stay of the impugned order, which was dismissed by the tribunal. The appeal itself was deemed fit for summary disposal, leading to the consideration of the appeal filed by the Revenue.

2. The respondent imported stainless steel coils of grade 304, claiming them to be of prime quality. The assessing authority raised doubts regarding the quality declaration, leading to an inspection by an approved Chartered Engineer. Despite the Chartered Engineer certifying the goods as prime quality, the assessing authority rejected the certificate. Subsequent examinations by the Dy. Commissioner and a committee of officers confirmed the goods as defective. The tribunal noted discrepancies in the inspection processes and ordered a reexamination by the Chartered Engineer in the presence of both parties.

3. The tribunal emphasized the need for a reexamination of the goods by the Chartered Engineer in the presence of the department's representatives to ensure a fair assessment. The assessing authority was directed to reassess the Bill of Entry and issue a speaking order after providing the importer with an opportunity to be heard. The lower authorities' orders were set aside, and the appeal was allowed by way of remand.

4. The tribunal highlighted the importance of conducting the reexamination promptly, setting a timeline of 30 days for the inspection and an additional 30 days for the assessing authority to pass an order. The decision to remand the case aimed to address the discrepancies in the inspection process and ensure a fair assessment of the imported goods.

5. The tribunal concluded by disposing of the stay application, focusing on the need for a thorough reexamination process to determine the quality of the imported goods accurately.