Licence-description mismatch barred DEEC exemption, while alternative duty and CVD credit claims were remanded for fresh adjudication.

Heavy Melting Scrap imported against a DEEC licence covering re-rollable scrap could not automatically qualify for exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus., because the goods did not match the licence description. The authority also had not decided the appellant's alternative claims for assessment under the notifications applicable to the imported goods, including concessional duty treatment and CVD credit. Those unresolved claims required fresh adjudication after granting a hearing, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether goods imported as Heavy Melting Scrap, though covered by a DEEC licence for re-rollable scrap, could be denied exemption under Notification No. 203/92-Cus.; and whether the matter required reconsideration of the applicable duty and credit-related claims under the other notifications relied upon.

Analysis: The imported goods were found to be Heavy Melting Scrap, whereas the DEEC licence permitted import of re-rollable scrap. In such a situation, the benefit claimed under the DEEC-linked exemption could not be enforced mechanically against goods not covered by the licence description. At the same time, the claim for duty to be determined under the notifications applicable to the imported goods, including the plea for concessional treatment and the claim relating to CVD credit, had not been decided by the adjudicating authority. Those claims therefore required fresh examination after giving the appellant an opportunity of hearing.

Conclusion: The order was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh adjudication of the appellant's alternative claims, while the DEEC-based exemption could not be maintained for the imported goods as described.

---