2009 (2) TMI 571 - AT - Customs

Tribunal dismisses custom duty claim on brass scrap but remands duty reassessment for confiscated consignments

BANLEV CHEMEXIM PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA

The Tribunal dismissed the rectification request concerning the levy of additional customs duty on brass scrap, determining that brass scrap is a ... Rectification of mistake Issues: Rectification of mistake in the order related to additional customs duty on brass scrap and confiscation under Section 111(O) of Customs Act, 1962.Rectification of Mistake - Additional Customs Duty on Brass Scrap:The appellants sought rectification of a mistake in the order regarding the levy of additional customs duty on brass scrap, arguing that it should not be applicable as brass scrap is not a manufactured item. The learned advocate cited two judgments to support this claim. The first case discussed was Indian Aluminum Co. Ltd. v. C.C.E., where the Supreme Court noted that certain products were not obtained during the manufacturing process, indicating they were not liable to duty. The second case cited was Hyderabad Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, which emphasized the necessity of manufacture for duty levy but did not specifically address brass scrap. The Tribunal highlighted that the advocate failed to provide a specific decision stating that brass scrap is not a manufactured item. Referring to Khandelwal Metal & Engineering Works v. Union of India, the Tribunal concluded that brass scrap is a bio-product of the manufacturing process and is excisable. The Tribunal noted that the advocate conceded to having no evidence of brass scrap imports without duty payment, indicating that the rectification request was made despite this admission. The order was passed to clarify the issue of additional customs duty on brass scrap.Rectification of Mistake - Confiscation under Section 111(O) of Customs Act, 1962:Regarding the confiscation under Section 111(O) of the Customs Act, 1962, the appellants argued that two consignments had been cleared after duty payment, questioning the correctness of the confiscation. The Tribunal acknowledged this submission and remanded the case to determine the details of duty payable, paid, and balance due. The authority was directed to consider the duty already paid for the two consignments during the implementation of the order. The Tribunal instructed the authority to reassess the liability for confiscation under Section 111(O) and determine any additional penalties if necessary. The rectification of mistake application was disposed of with these directives.In conclusion, the judgment addressed the rectification of mistakes related to the levy of additional customs duty on brass scrap and the confiscation under Section 111(O) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal analyzed the arguments presented by the appellants, discussed relevant case law, and provided clear directives for further proceedings to ensure the correct application of customs duty and consideration of duty payments made for the consignments in question.