1992 (7) TMI 153 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in the quantity of imported Pig Iron.
2. Assessment of duty based on declared quantity versus actual weighment.
3. Reliability of Draft Survey method for determining cargo weight.
4. Admissibility of additional evidence in the form of a certificate from Port Trust.

Analysis:
1. The case involves a dispute over the quantity of Pig Iron imported by the respondents from China. The initial declaration in shipping documents was 5334 MT, but actual weighment revealed a higher quantity of 5395 MT. The Department demanded additional duty based on the discrepancy.

2. The main contention was whether duty should be assessed based on the declared quantity or the actual weighment. The Department argued for duty on the actual weighment of 5476.500 MT, as certified by the Port Trust. Conversely, the respondents asserted that payment was made for the invoiced quantity of 5334 MT, which should be considered the correct weight for duty assessment.

3. The reliability of the Draft Survey method for determining cargo weight was questioned. The Deputy Traffic Manager's endorsement on the Bill of Entry indicated 5395 MT based on the Draft Survey. However, the subsequent certificate from the Port Trust confirmed the actual weighment at 5476.500 MT, showing a significant difference between the two methods.

4. The Department sought to introduce a certificate from the Port Trust as additional evidence. The Tribunal allowed the certificate to be admitted, as it reflected the actual weighment of the goods and was deemed relevant for resolving the issues in the appeal.

Conclusion:
After considering the arguments and evidence presented, the Tribunal set aside the Collector's order and allowed the Department's appeal. The discrepancy in the quantity of Pig Iron, the reliability of the Draft Survey method, and the actual weighment results were crucial factors in determining the duty assessment based on the actual weighment of 5476.500 MT.