2019 (2) TMI 500 - AT - Customs

Classification of imported goods - Coking Coal or not - benefit of N/N. 21/2002-CUS dated 01.03.2002 as amended Sl.No.68 - Held that - An identical issue in respect of various bills of entry were disposed of by this Bench in JSW STEEL LTD VERSUS CC, VIJAYAWADA 2017 (11) TMI 1584 - CESTAT HYDERABAD wherein it is held that coal imported by appellants under 19 Bills of Entry is eligible for the benefit of exemption notification under 21/2002-Cus - there is no reason to deviate from such a view already taken by the Bench. It is nobody s case that coal imported by appellant is not non-coking coal as during the period in question, the parameters for ascertaining what is coking coal were insufficient and the coal which is imported in this appeal was answering to the specification as indicated at N/N. 21/2002-CUS. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported coal as coking coal for duty exemption under Notification No.21/2002-CUS.
2. Applicability of corex technology for using coal with lower Crucible Swelling Number (CSN) directly in iron and steel manufacturing process.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the Order-in-Original denying duty exemption on imported "Black Water Soft Coking Coal" under Notification No.21/2002-CUS. The appellant contended that the coal, with a CSN of 1.50, was suitable for corex technology in iron and steel manufacturing, not requiring conversion to coking coal. Despite the chemical laboratory report indicating non-coking coal, the appellant argued for exemption based on the technology used. The adjudicating authority disagreed, leading to demands and penalties. The appellant cited precedents where similar issues favored exemption, emphasizing the lack of a coking coal definition in the notification.

2. The departmental representative argued against the coal's classification as coking coal, essential for iron and steel production. Referencing a publication on iron-making processes, the representative highlighted restrictions on non-coking coal in corex technology. However, the Tribunal, considering previous judgments favoring the appellant's position, found no deviation warranted. The Tribunal noted that the coal met the specifications under Notification No.21/2002-CUS during the relevant period, despite limitations in corex technology. The Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was unsustainable, aligning with previous decisions, although acknowledging the pending appeals before the Apex Court.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with any consequential relief. The decision emphasized the suitability of the imported coal for corex technology and its compliance with the notification's specifications, rejecting the denial of duty exemption based on the coal's classification as coking coal.