2016 (8) TMI 430 - AT - Customs

Classification - Silicon Electrical Steel Strip Scrap scrap - Silicon Electrical Steel confiscation redemption fine Held that - similar goods obtained by dismantling of old and used transformers will be considered as scrap and not as old and used CRGO sheets requiring a licence. Therefore, no misdeclaration of description by the Appellant in respect of the present consignment as held in the case 2009 (10) TMI 717 - CESTAT KOLKATA Assessable value enhancement - There is no iota of evidence that appellant has repatriated any excess money to the foreign supplier over and above the invoice value. Under the existing factual matrix it cannot be held that relied upon documents of imports were of contemporary nature enhancement not sustainable. Appeal allowed decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the classification of the imported goods should be considered as scrap or old and used CRGO strips inviting confiscation or redemption?
2. Whether the assessable value was correctly enhanced by the Adjudicating authority?

Analysis:

Issue 1:
The appellant argued that the imported goods were scrap material, not subject to import licensing restrictions. They contended that the goods were obtained from dismantled old transformers. A report confirmed the material to be CRGO sheets from dismantling transformers. Previous case laws favored importers in similar situations, considering such goods as scrap. The Tribunal held that the goods were scrap and not defective CRGO sheets, as argued by the Adjudicating authority. The enhancement of value based on DOV data was deemed unnecessary, as there was no misdeclaration of goods. The Department accepted the case laws, and no contrary evidence was presented.

Issue 2:
Regarding the enhancement of the assessable value, the Tribunal found no evidence that the goods in question were obtained from old transformers like those in the relied upon cases. Factors like the nature of the contract, quantity of goods imported, and contemporariness of imports were crucial. There was no proof of excess payment to the foreign supplier. Therefore, the enhancement of the assessable value by the Adjudicating authority was deemed unsustainable and set aside. The appeals were allowed in favor of the Appellant.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the arguments presented by both parties, the reliance on previous case laws, and the Tribunal's reasoning in deciding the issues raised in the appeal.