9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive particulars in the foreign supplier s invoice dated 24-3-2004. The Bill of Entry classified the goods under CTH 7204 49 00 and CET sub-heading 7204.90, claiming the benefit of Customs Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002 and Central Excise Notification No. 6/2002, dated 1-3-2002. In terms of these Notifications, the importer need to pay Basic Customs Duty (BCD) @ 15% and Coutervailing Duty (CVD) @ 8% only. On physical examination, the goods were found to be Rusted Pitted Pipes of Steel of various diameters ranging from 2 inches to 20 inches and of approximate length of 19 feet. The Customs authorities took the view that the goods required to be classified as serviceable tubes of iron under CTH 7306 90 11 and CET sub-heading 7306 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t interfere with the decision of the lower Authority. In the present appeal, the department challenges the order for mutilation of the misdeclared goods, on the strength of the Supreme Court s judgment in UOI v. Madanlal Steel Industries Ltd., 2001 (132) E.L.T. 526 (S.C.). It is also pointed out that no rules have been framed for the procedure of mutilation of imported goods under Section 24 ibid. The importer has filed cross-objection challenging the appellate Commissioner s finding of misdeclaration against them. It is contended that the goods i.e. rusted and pitted pipes were only to be treated as waste and scrap and classified as such in terms of Note 8 (a) of Section XV of the CTA Schedule. 3. After examining the records, hearing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e held to have misdeclared the goods by describing them as re-rollable scrap . The finding of misdeclaralion of goods, recorded by the lower authorities, is not sustainable on facts and in law. What was held by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Madanlal Steel Industries (supra) was that, where there was misdeclaration of goods by importer, there was no question of permitting mutilation under Section 24 of the Customs Act. As we have found no misdeclaration of goods by the respondents, we have to sustain the appellate Commissioner s order permitting mutilation of the goods. In the cited case, the apex court did not rule that mutilation of imported goods was not to be allowed for want of rules governing procedure of mutilat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
