9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (4) TMI 136X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Act on the ground that these were not utilised as imports for their project but had been sold to others. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellants after having registered their project import contract under Project Import Regulations, 1986 with Paradeep Customs for import of 5972.090 MT of steel billets cleared the same at the concessional rate of duty as project imports. The Bill of Entry was provisionally assessed and classified under Customs Tariff Heading 9801.00 as project import. Subsequently, the department found that the appellants had sold a quantity of 4996.635 MT of imported steel billets to different outside parties instead of using it in their project. A show cause notice dated 24-11-1988 was issued alleging that they h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel pointed out that the appellants had approached the Joint Plant Committee (JPC) for disposal of the material which was surplus to their use to other actual users and which have been cleared by the appellants at concessional rate as project import, and they had been duly granted permission by the JPC for such a disposal. This was in accordance with the provisions in the Import Policy. They had also kept the jurisdictional Asstt. Collector informed. As regards the eligibility to Notification 213/85 the learned counsel contended that the carbon content of the billets imported was 0.10/0.23% as seen from the Inspection Certificate of the foreign supplier and the same tallies with the IS Specification No. 2830/75 for carbon steel billets. As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llector has unjustly ignored the Superintendent s precedent assessment where the benefit of the same Notification had been given by the department to identical material. 5. Shri M.S. Arora, learned D.R. argued that the certificate of inspection produced by the appellants on perusal and comparison with the description of the goods shows that it is not relatable to the goods as described in the Bill of Entry and it also does not tally with the purchase order. He further contended that the certificate itself is of questionable evidentiary value because it has been produced after the goods had been cleared out of Customs charge and in this context he relied upon the CEGAT decision in the case of M/s. Nicco Orissa Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d D.R. Admitted fact is that the appellants had cleared the steel billets initially at the concessional rate as project imports under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 Sub-heading 9801.00. It is also admitted that a quantity of 4996.635 MT of steel billets out of the imported quantity of 5972.90 MT was not utilised by them as project import but they had, with the permission of the JPC, sold the same to other parties. Therefore, clearly on this quantity of 4996.635 MT the concessional rate under the sub-heading 9801.00 as project import is not applicable, and that quantity of steel billets will have to be classified and assessed on merits for which the Customs House has adopted the classification of 7207.11 of Customs Tariff Act. Appellants are now q ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eally come within the purview of the exemption Notification 213/85 the appellants ought to have declared firstly that the goods are carbon steel billets; secondly that they are other than forging quality, and thirdly there should also have been an indication that the import is for the manufacture of bars, rods or light structural. Clearly, these conditions were not satisfied by the description of the goods in the Bill of Entry at the time of import and clearance of the goods when they were cleared as project imports with the description of the items merely as steel billets as referred to above. It was only subsequent to the clearance that the claim regarding the Notification 213/85 was put forth. In fact the claim in this regard has been pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... A reference had also been made to other clearances of similar material granting the exemption under the same notification. A perusal of some of the Bills of Entry produced in this regard shows that in those Bills of Entry the description steel billets had been expanded by indicating that they are other than forging quality, and also indicated that they are for manufacture of bars and rods. Therefore, those cases are clearly distinguishable. In these circumstances, we find that the Collector s order is reasonable wherein he had found that although the appellants were not eligible for Notification 213/85 yet had found that another notification which is unconditional for the goods, namely, Notification 86/86 was available for the goods importe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
