1992 (9) TMI 92 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge of levy of additional duty of customs on imported copper scrap under the Central Excise Law.
2. Interpretation of Central Excise Tariff Item 26A and Residuary Entry 68 for classification of copper scrap.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner contested the levy of additional duty of customs on imported copper scrap, arguing that it did not qualify as "goods" under the Central Excise Law. However, the Supreme Court's decision in Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works case established that scrap is subject to excise duty and additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act. Thus, this contention was dismissed.

2. The main issue was whether copper scrap fell under Central Excise Tariff Item 26A or Residuary Entry 68. The original Tariff Item 26A described copper in crude form, while an amendment from 1-4-1981 explicitly included waste and scrap of copper. The respondents argued that even before the amendment, copper scrap fell under Item 26A(1). However, the court analyzed the definitions of "crude" and "scrap" to conclude that copper scrap did not fit within the description of copper in crude form. This interpretation was supported by previous judgments from Madras and Kerala High Courts.

3. The court overruled a previous judgment that held copper scrap was covered under Item 26A before the 1981 amendment. It clarified that copper scrap imported before 1-4-1981 should be classified under Residuary Entry 68 for the levy of additional duty of customs. The respondents were directed to calculate and collect the duty, along with interest, from the petitioner promptly.

In conclusion, the court determined that copper scrap did not fall under Tariff Item 26A before the 1981 amendment and should be classified under the Residuary Entry 68 for the imposition of additional duty of customs. The judgment emphasized the distinction between copper in crude form and scrap, based on legal interpretations and previous court decisions.