2002 (1) TMI 113 - AT - Customs

Imported Aluminum Scrap suitable for recycling despite density variations exceeding ISRI code guidelines

The Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by M/s. Varun Aluminium Industries Ltd., determining that the imported Aluminium Scrap, although having density ... EXIM Policy - Imports under OGL - Precedent order Issues involved:Whether Aluminium Scrap imported is liable for confiscation under Customs Act.Analysis:The appeals filed by M/s. Varun Aluminium Industries Ltd. raised the issue of whether the imported Aluminium Scrap is subject to confiscation under the Customs Act. The Managing Director of the company argued that the ISRI specifications are flexible and subject to negotiation between the buyer and seller. He provided letters from experts stating that the density variations in the scrap do not affect its composition or fitness for recycling. The Managing Director also highlighted a previous case where penalties were imposed but clarified that the circumstances were different in the present matter.The Departmental Representative countered by referring to a previous case where the Tribunal concluded that the goods did not meet ISRI grades. It was argued that as the density in the impugned consignment exceeded the ISRI code, an import license would be required. The dispute centered around whether variations in specifications needed ISRI ratification and the interpretation of the Adjudicating Authority's findings regarding special arrangements between buyers and sellers.After considering the arguments, the Tribunal noted that the imported goods were Used Beverage Can Aluminium Scrap intended for further manufacturing. They found merit in the Appellants' argument that ISRI codes are guidelines allowing variations by mutual agreement. It was established that the density discrepancy was due to the foreign supplier's machinery limitations, with both parties agreeing to the higher density. The Tribunal distinguished the present case from a previous decision where there was no mutual agreement between the buyer and seller. They also referenced a case law stating that decisions resulting from consent between parties do not settle legal questions for others. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed both appeals based on the specific facts and circumstances presented.