Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 779 - AT - CustomsMisdeclaration of goods – cut used rails or used rails of assorted sizes - whether the item is a “melting scrap” or “re-rollable scrap” for the purpose of Notification 21/2002-Cus - Revenue was of the view that goods were classifiable under Customs Tariff Item 7302 10 90 in which case the exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus was not available to the goods - Rate of duty - Held that:- There was no reason to deny the classification claimed by the assesse for the goods to be under Heading 72.04 or to consider the goods not to be “Melting scrap of Iron and Steel” as described in Notification 21/2002-Cus – following the judgement of HINDUJA FOUNDRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUS. (IMPORT), CHENNAI - [2013 (9) TMI 422 - CESTAT CHENNAI]. The difference in the case of used rails is that the item was specifically mentioned under Heading 72.04 for the purpose of excluding it - The meaning of the expressions “melting scrap” or “re-rollable scrap” were not defined in the Customs Tariff or HSN notes though the HSN notes makes a mention that waste and scrap which can be rolled into other products without melting to recover metal was excluded from Heading 72.04. Whether the value loaded for assessment is sustainable because duty other than basic customs duty was payable even when exemption under notification 21/-2002-Cus (S. No. 200) is extended - Held that:- The only reason for increase in value made is mis-declaration in description of goods. No evidence of additional remittance of money is brought out. Also there is an issue scrap is not a type of goods which can be easily compared. The appellants have also taken objection that the time of import of the comparable goods taken was also different and hence the value adopted for assessment has no legal basis. Revenue argues that the appellants accepted the increased value before clearance and hence they cannot challenge it now. No record showing acceptance of increase in value is brought on record - Following decision of CC Vs. D. M. International [2008 (6) TMI 525 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] - – Decide in favor of assesse.
|