9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13.8.2001, for clearance thereof at the concessional tariff rate of duty as applicable to S.S. steel scrap falling under Heading 72.04 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. On second-check examination conducted by the docks staff, the goods were found to be not stainless steel scrap. A subsequent 100% examination of the goods by a panel of officers of Customs consisting of a Metal Expert (Appraising Officer) and two other Appraising Officers (Docks) supervised by the Assistant Commissioner (Docks) revealed that the goods were serviceable goods which could be used directly without melting vide examination report dated 7.1.2002. A re-examination of the goods was subsequently conducted by a similar panel of officers of Customs, wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods and/or clearance of the goods under bond with obligation to submit certificate from the jurisdictional Central Excise officer regarding the end-use of the goods (re-melting). The respondent also questioned the reliability of the examination reports dated 7.1.2002 and 4.3.2002. They wanted to cross-examine the members of the panel of experts. They also relied on case law on various points. 2. It was in adjudication of the above dispute that the Commissioner passed the impugned order, the operative part of which reads as follows:- ORDER The benefit of doubt is extended to the importer that the goods are stainless steel scrap 303 classifiable under tariff heading 7204 of the CTA, 1975, and the proceedings pursuant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upreme Court observed that the point of time at which an offer of mutilation was made by the importer was relevant and that such an offer made after the offence had been discovered was not liable to be accepted for want of bona fides. The learned SDR also refers to Note 8(a) to Section XV of HSN and submits that any article of iron or steel, definitively not usable as such because of breakage, cutting-up, wear or other reasons would get covered by the expression waste and scrap of iron or steel . It is submitted that the examination reports, in this case, categorically held the subject goods to be serviceable without melting and, therefore, the goods could not fall within the ambit of waste and scrap defined under Note 8(a) ibid. The learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
