UMA MERCANTILE PVT. LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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.) COUNSEL submits that there is no dispute pertaining to 1.45 MTs which was considered as stripes with holes and as scrap; 13.01 MTs which have been considered as cut -sheets. The dispute revolves around is 81.61 MTs of scrap which had been imported by the appellant and declared as scrap. The department had drawn samples and had sent the same to National Metallurgical Lab (NML) for obtaining opinion on the same. NML issued a certificate stating that the samples satisfy the requirement of Clause 5.18 of ISI specification and it is a bushelling scarp. The Commissioner however did not accept the report of the NML and held that although the opinion of NML is correct but they had failed to notice that the goods in question were of uniform size and shape and it cannot be considered as scrap. He has noted 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 18:2549:1994 in Clause 5.18 pertaining to bushelling and the samples sent to NML, Chennai confirm the item to be bushelling scrap. Therefore the authority having referred the same to an expert body, cannot deny the same and adopt his own opinion based on his own understanding. He also submits that in another Order -in -Appeal No. C Cus. 13/98, dated 12 -1 -98 Commissioner has accepted the report of NML and held the item to be metal scrap. He submits that revenue had come in appeal against the said order and this Bench was pleased to reject the revenue appeal in Final Order No. 970/2002, dated 26 -8 -2002 by holding in Para 2 as follows :