TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (2) TMI 369
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard ld. D.R. 4. It is observed that the appellants have submitted, inter alia, that (i) they are manufacturing paper and paper boards of different varieties. Their factory is an approved industry under the Industrial Development and Regulation Act. The raw material needed for the appellant's factory is waste paper. (ii) They had imported a consignment of the letter waste (paper waste) from New York for their own consumption in its factory and sought assessment of the said goods as waste paper classifiable under tariff item 4707.90 as per the Customs Tariff and eligible to assessment as per Notification No. 219/84 read with Notification No. 124/92. (iii) On exam....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd use certificate is only to avoid any possible misuse of the goods imported. (iii) The envelopes imported had lot of printed matters on them and as such the said envelopes cannot be put to any commercial use by the appellant and the only possible use is to use it as raw material for making pulp in view of its fibre content. (iv) The authorities have over looked that the report of the appraiser shows that out of the total quantity of 19.391 M.T. 17.391 M.T. represented waste (printed envelopes) and 1.6 M.Ts. as blank envelopes but still the appellate Authority treated the entire consignment as envelopes fit for commercial. (v) The authorities should have classified the goods as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oods, were important, as the description in the bill of entry did not tally with the goods, and the consignment on examination was found to contain envelopes of both printed and blank and not waste paper or letter waste is declared. The imported items were, therefore, classifiable under tariff heading 4817.10 and not 47.07 and the benefit of notification 219/84 could not be extended. Furthermore, in the circumstances of the case, the goods were liable to confiscation and imposition of redemption fine was justified. 9. We have considered the above submissions. We observe that the ld. D.R. is correct in drawing attention towards the result of examination in the docks. The consignment, in the form in which it was imported and presented f....