9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (11) TMI 135X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equivalent to Rs. 3300/-PMT. The learned Additional Collector held that the imported item had resorted to mis-declaration and attempted to evade customs duty and hence held them liable to penalty of Rs. 15,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The Department examined the goods imported in 56 drums, which was found to be metal forgings, being basically different from "Brass Residue". The learned Additional Collector also held that the goods were liable to confiscate under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. The learned Additional Collector has based his findings on the basis of the test report obtained from CRCL, Pusa Road, New Delhi, which stated that the same is in the form of metallic powder of five s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g, Ash or other enprious residues. As the item contains ash, mud etc. it cannot be classified as waste and scrap. The learned Advocate further pleaded that no mala fide could be attributed to the appellants on the face of all the documents of the supplier, as it clearly establishes that the item is only Brass Residue. He also submitted that two drums weighing 1858.991 kgs. involving duty amount of Rs. 32,859.45 was lost by theft prior to clearance, and the authority was bound to have given the deduction which they failed to do so. 6. The learned DR pointed out that the Test Report has not been challenged by the appellants. The Test report clearly indicates that the item is not Brass Residue in view of being in the nature of sharings a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... %. It is free from acids and silicious matter. It is other than `Brass Residue'." 10. The appellant has not challenged this report by asking for retest or by cross-examining the chemical examiner. 11. The importer contended that they had ordered from M/s. British Metal Corporation for supply of "Brass Residue" at the rate of US $ 35 cents per Ib CIF Bombay. It is stated that at the time of physical examination, Mr. Juneja, Commercial Manager of British Metal Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. was present, wherein the impression created that goods were Brass Scrap and not Brass Residue was refuted by Shri Juneja. Hence the appellant contend that there is no deliberate misdeclaration. They further state that they paid the duty also. It al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ning metals or metallic compounds mainly of copper". The test result, clearly indicates that the item is in the nature of yellowish metallic powder of fine sharings and drillings. Sharings and drillings arise out of metallic working of metals and it is not an 'Ash or a residue' hence, it clearly goes out of the Chapter 26.20. Further the item does not 'contain mainly copper' but it is an alloy of copper and zinc together with nickel and hence the finding of the chemical examiner that the item is not "Brass Residue" is required to be confirmed. Hence sub-heading 2620.30 is clearly ruled out. 15. The Department has classified the item under Heading 7402, which reads "unrefined copper, and copper anodes for electrical refining". Note 1( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
