AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1990 (4) TMI 136
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n a quantity of 4996.635 MT of Steel Billets under Section 28 of Customs Act on the ground that these were not utilised as imports for their project but had been sold to others. 2. The facts in brief are that the appellants after having registered their project import contract under Project Import Regulations, 1986 with Paradeep Customs for import of 5972.090 MT of steel billets cleared the same at the concessional rate of duty as project imports. The Bill of Entry was provisionally assessed and classified under Customs Tariff Heading 9801.00 as project import. Subsequently, the department found that the appellants had sold a quantity of 4996.635 MT of imported steel billets to different outside parties instead of using it in their proje....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are entitled to the exemption under Notification 213/85. The learned counsel pointed out that the appellants had approached the Joint Plant Committee (JPC) for disposal of the material which was surplus to their use to other actual users and which have been cleared by the appellants at concessional rate as project import, and they had been duly granted permission by the JPC for such a disposal. This was in accordance with the provisions in the Import Policy. They had also kept the jurisdictional Asstt. Collector informed. As regards the eligibility to Notification 213/85 the learned counsel contended that the carbon content of the billets imported was 0.10/0.23% as seen from the Inspection Certificate of the foreign supplier and the same t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urchase order placed with the suppliers. It was also contended that the Collector has unjustly ignored the Superintendent's precedent assessment where the benefit of the same Notification had been given by the department to identical material. 5. Shri M.S. Arora, learned D.R. argued that the certificate of inspection produced by the appellants on perusal and comparison with the description of the goods shows that it is not relatable to the goods as described in the Bill of Entry and it also does not tally with the purchase order. He further contended that the certificate itself is of questionable evidentiary value because it has been produced after the goods had been cleared out of Customs charge and in this context he relied upon the CE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and the learned D.R. Admitted fact is that the appellants had cleared the steel billets initially at the concessional rate as project imports under Customs Tariff Act, 1975 Sub-heading 9801.00. It is also admitted that a quantity of 4996.635 MT of steel billets out of the imported quantity of 5972.90 MT was not utilised by them as project import but they had, with the permission of the JPC, sold the same to other parties. Therefore, clearly on this quantity of 4996.635 MT the concessional rate under the sub-heading 9801.00 as project import is not applicable, and that quantity of steel billets will have to be classified and assessed on merits for which the Customs House has adopt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as project import was very cryptic as 'steel billets' whereas in order to really come within the purview of the exemption Notification 213/85 the appellants ought to have declared firstly that the goods are carbon steel billets; secondly that they are other than forging quality, and thirdly there should also have been an indication that the import is for the manufacture of bars, rods or light structural. Clearly, these conditions were not satisfied by the description of the goods in the Bill of Entry at the time of import and clearance of the goods when they were cleared as project imports with the description of the items merely as steel billets as referred to above. It was only subsequent to the clearance that the claim regarding the Not....