Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2014 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (6) TMI 85 - AT - CustomsValuation of goods - Rejection of transactional value - Held that:- there is no evidence of rejection of transaction value and no evidence of contemporaneous import, he has held that the transaction value has to be accepted as assessable value - in their memo of appeal, the Revenue has not placed any evidence on record to reject the assessee’s transaction value - Following decision of Eicher Tractor [2000 (11) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Decided against Revenue. Classification of goods - exemption at Sl. No. 438 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 - Whether an Alloy consisting of 60.6% of Copper and 13.90% Nickel can be considered as “Nickel” or “Articles of Nickel” for the purpose of availing exemption at Sl. No. 438 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 - Held that:- Though the “nickel silver turnings covered by ISRI code word ‘Niece’ ” is mentioned in the Tariff under sub-heading 75030010 pertaining the “Nickel waste and scrap”, which would also cover the waste and scrap of Nickel alloy, in term of sub-heading note 1(b) of Chapter 75, in Nickel alloys, nickel has to predominate by weight over each of other constituents and, therefore, a base metal alloy in which copper predominates by weight can not be treated as Nickel alloy. Even in term of Section Note 5 to Section XV, ‘Nickel’ silver alloy in question, can not be treated as Nickel alloy but has to be treated as copper alloy. There is, thus, conflict between the wordings of the heading 75030010 and the section note and sub-heading notes. Therefore the sub-heading 75030010 pertaining to “Nickel waste and scrap”, would cover only that scrap of Nickel or its alloy in which Nickel predominates by weight over other constituents. The goods, in question, in which copper predominates by weight over other constituents cannot be classified as Nickel alloy scrap and hence the same cannot be treated as ‘Nickel’. In view of this, the goods, in question, are not covered by S. No. 438 of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., notwithstanding the fact that the goods have been classified under sub-heading 75030010, which in my view, is a mistake - goods, in question, being a copper alloy are not covered by S. No. 438 of the table of the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus - Decided against Assessee.
|