1999 (5) TMI 313 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods under Heading 2620 as Ash and Residues or under Heading 7901.20 as Zinc Alloys.
2. Justification of enhancing the value of goods based on the metal bulletin dated 21-2-1991.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported goods declared as "Zinc Die Cast Dross" seeking clearance under a specific bill of entry. The declared price and classification sought were under Heading 2620 as "Ash and Residues." However, upon examination, it was found that the goods did not meet the criteria for "Prime Zinc Die Cast Dross" as per NARI's circular NF-85. The appellant argued that the goods were not misdeclared as they were in line with NARI's specifications. The advocate contended that the goods should not be classified under Heading 7901.20 as Zinc Alloys but under Heading 2620 due to the nature and description of the goods. Additionally, the appellant disputed the valuation based on the international metal bulletin, pointing out that the zinc content in the goods was 94% as opposed to the 98% zinc content in the bulletin, which was not considered by the adjudicating authority.

2. The department justified the classification of the goods under Heading 7901.20 as Zinc Alloys and the valuation based on the metal bulletin. The Revenue argued that the classification issue was settled based on a previous Tribunal decision. The department compared the price of the goods to the Zinc Alloy with 98% zinc content, while the goods in question contained 94% zinc. The appellant raised a valid point regarding the variation in zinc content affecting the comparison, which was not addressed in the impugned order.

3. After considering the submissions from both parties, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the goods under Heading 7901.20 as Zinc Alloys. However, regarding valuation, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's argument that the comparison should account for the difference in zinc content. As a result, the matter was remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for reconsideration of the valuation issue. The Commissioner was directed to re-examine the valuation and determine any penalty based on the outcome of the valuation reassessment. The Tribunal noted that the goods were declared as per NARI specifications, which also needed further examination by the Commissioner.

4. In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of with the direction for reevaluation of the valuation issue and potential penalty determination by the jurisdictional Commissioner. The classification under Heading 7901.20 as Zinc Alloys was upheld, but the valuation discrepancy based on zinc content required a fresh assessment, considering the appellant's argument and NARI specifications.