9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (12) TMI 456X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er per : S.L. Peeran, Member (J)]. Appellant is aggrieved with the Order-in-Original No. 22/2000, dated 8-3-2000 by which the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai has rejected the assessee s declaration pertaining to (81.61 MTs as bushelling scrap and held the same to be as Slates/Plates and re-fixed the value. He has also imposed a fine of Rs. 1,70,000/- besides penalty of Rs. 20,000/-. 2. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oted that going by the dimensions of these pieces they can be used as such and they cannot be said that they are fit only for melting. He has also noted that the importer is a trader and not an actual user and hence the item is required to be categorized as Slate/Plates. 3. Counsel Shri S. Murugappan, Advocate along with Ms. Pramila, Advocate submits that the item satisfy IS:2549:1994 in Clause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the NML s certificate certifying the item to be non-alloy steel scrap for melting purpose. He has also noted the guidelines for considering the item to be ferrous scrap issued by the ISRI, USA where ISRI Code 207 contains same definition of Bushelling. He has also noted the trade understanding to treat the item as scrap and that such material is not manufactured, marketed or available in the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and submits that the Commissioner s observation that the size of the item is very big and to be considered as Slates/Plates should be upheld. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions and find lot of merit in the contention raised by the counsel. We notice that the Commissioner himself got drawn the samples and sent the same to NML. They have examined the item and had given a clear re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to treat 81.61 MTs as metal scrap is upheld. However as they have not contested 13.01 MTs of longer size, the matter has to go back to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai to re-determine fine and penalty. The impugned order is modified accordingly and the matter remanded to re-fix RF and penalty on 13.01 MTs as it is not contested by the appellant. Counsel submits that the goods are lying in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
