9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against confiscation of imported consignments declared as Heavy Melting Scrap and denial of concessional duty rate. Analysis: The appeals challenged the confiscation of consignments imported as Heavy Melting Scrap and the rejection of the appellant's claim for a concessional duty rate applicable to melting scrap. The Customs authorities found a part of the declared scrap to be old and used angles, rods, and pipes, which were considered serviceable and not eligible for treatment as melting scrap. The misdeclaration charge was based on the discrepancy between the declared description and the actual contents of the consignments, leading to a violation of the Import Control Policy for 1997-2001, which restricted the import of second-hand goods without a specific license. The appellant argued that the goods were not misdeclared as they were intended for re-melting, emphasizing that even though the items were old and used, they were suitable only for re-melting and not for their original purpose. The appellant offered to mutilate the disputed items to eliminate the possibility of alternative use, citing a previous decision where similar goods were cleared as melting scrap. The appellant contended that the mere presence of pipes, angles, etc., should not disqualify the consignment from being considered scrap, as supported by a previous Tribunal decision. The respondent, however, maintained that the goods must be assessed and cleared based on their condition at the time of import, pointing out that the presence of serviceable pipes and rods rendered the consignments ineligible for scrap assessment. The respondent argued that the imported items did not meet the specifications set by ISI for scrap and were, therefore, not eligible for concessional duty as scrap. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence to dispute that the goods were sold and bought as melting scrap, including the disputed pipes, angles, and rods. The controversy over the serviceability of the items was based on visual inspection, which the Tribunal deemed as a possibility rather than a commercial reality. Given that the majority of the consignment was intended for re-melting and only a small portion was in doubt, the misdeclaration charge was deemed unfounded. The Tribunal ordered the clearance of the consignments as per the import declaration and directed the appellant to mutilate the disputed items as per Customs authorities' instructions. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders, allowing the consignments to be assessed and cleared as declared, with the appellant instructed to mutilate the disputed items as necessary for clearance.
|
