9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Classification of imported goods as Tin Alloy Dross or Lead Alloy Waste
The appeal pertains to the classification of goods declared as Tin Alloy Dross in the bill of entries by M/s. Hindustan Alloys Mfg. Co. Ltd. The Revenue contended that the goods were lead waste, not tin alloy dross, leading to a dispute on the classification under the Customs Tariff. The Collector of Customs classified the goods as Lead Alloy Waste and Tin based on the bill of entries, demanding a differential duty of Rs. 7,267. Analysis: The appellants argued for the cross-examination of the Chief Chemist, which was denied. They claimed to be actual manufacturers requiring imported goods for export orders, necessitating provisional clearance. The Revenue reiterated the adjudicating authority's stance. Upon review, it was noted that the goods were declared as Tin Alloy Dross with Tin content at 53% and Lead at 30%. The classification under sub-heading 2620.90 was sought, covering ash and residues containing metals. However, Chapter Note 3 and HSN Explanatory Notes clarified that this heading applies to residues from industrial use for metal extraction or chemical compound manufacture, not merely containing metals. The goods lacked evidence of being by-products of metallurgical processes. The Chief Chemist's report indicated that the goods were not dross but tin/lead metal alloy. Dross and scrap were distinguished as separate tariff commodities with distinct duty rates. Dross, defined as scum from molten metals, was not applicable if the material did not surface during melting. The goods' physical examination revealed metallic pieces, not dross, leading to their classification as alloy waste. The certificate provided by the appellants was analyzed, and the Chemical Examiner's role was clarified as providing analysis for the adjudicating authority's classification decision. The lack of dross characteristics in the goods rendered the cross-examination of the Chief Chemist irrelevant for proper classification. The importation occurred in 1986, with a minor differential duty of Rs. 7,267. After considering all aspects, no substantial evidence warranted overturning the Collector's factual findings regarding the goods' classification.
|
