9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... escribes the product in the general description as Indonesian Coking Coal N Bulk - The chemical examiners reports or the orders of lower authorities do not identify the parameters which are used to differentiate between them. We find that significant merit in the argument of Ld. Counsel. Nowhere in the proceedings, Revenue (or for that matter the importer) has produced any concrete literature which describes “coking coal” and identifies parameters that differentiate between “coking coal” and other coals - In these circumstances, it would not be possible to finalize the issue. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority, to decide afresh after identifying specific paramete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Thereafter, another request for testing was made by the appellant from CFRI, Dhanbad. However, the CRCL denied the request observing that the testing was done as per the guideline of CFRI, Dhanbad. Ld. Counsel argued that at the time of import, they had presented the certificate by sampling analysis from the supplier s end issued by the testing agencies Inspectorate (Singapore Pvt. Ltd.). She argued that in terms of said certificate, the product was coking coal . She further pointed out that the contract with the supplier M/s Noble Energy, Singapore also described their product as coking coal . She argued that when Revenue has accepted the product to be coking coal in respect of part of the consignment which was unloaded at Mudra port, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Coking coal of ash content below 12% 5% - - 69 27.01 Coking coal of ash content of 12% or more 15% - - 70 2701.12 All goods other than coking coal 25% - - The notification at the material time when the imports were made did not define would constitute coking coal . However, by notification 21/2011, subsequent to the import of goods the following explanation was inserted: (xi) against S.no. 68, for the entry in column (3), the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Inspectorate (Singapore), Pvt. Ltd in the general description describe the product as coking coal . However, there is no such conclusion reached as a result of testing done by them. They have simply reported the test results. The description appearing in the certificate cannot be said to be the report of the Inspectorate but that is merely what has been described by the party seeking the test report. Similarly, the test report of Chemical Examiner measured the total moisture, ash content on ADB and Volatile Matter on ADB and comes to the conclusion that it is other than coking coal . It does not describe as to what are the parameters which determine that the product is coking coal or otherwise. Similarly, it is seen that the repor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mass of coal, for coals of about 89 wt carbon on a dry, mineral manner-free basis, or 30% of volatile matter. Coals having 18-32% volatile matter are used to produce hard metallurgical coke. She argued that the above paragraph does not in any way prescribes that the coking coal should have volatile matter only within the range of 18-33 percent and that coal with a different percentage of different volatile matter cannot be used as coking coal. She further argued that the Commissioner (Appeal) as relied on the following paragraph appearing in page 455 of the reference book further reads as under: Several Laboratory tests are used to determine the desirability of a coal or blend of coals for making coke. These are empirical an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tiate between them. We find that significant merit in the argument of Ld. Counsel. Nowhere in the proceedings, Revenue (or for that matter the importer) has produced any concrete literature which describes coking coal and identifies parameters that differentiate between coking coal and other coals. In these circumstances, it would not be possible to finalize the issue. The impugned order is, therefore, set aside and the matter is remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority, to decide afresh after identifying specific parameters duly supported by literature on which they wish to rely on for differentiating between coal and coking coal . The matter can be decided only after the Revenue has identified the said parameters. The appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
