TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (8) TMI 740
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en confiscated with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1,25,000/- (rupees one lakh twenty five thousand). In addition, personal penalty of Rs. 75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand) has been imposed upon the importing firm M/s. Jhawar Trading (P) Ltd. and penalty of Rs. 75,000/- (rupees seventy five thousand) has been imposed upon the second appellant Shri Raj Kr. Jhawar, who is the director of the said firm. 2. The appellant M/s. Jhawar Trading (P) Ltd. imported a consignment declaring the same to be as zinc scrap 'SAVES' and filed a bill of entry on 13-5-99. On the basis of investigation carried out by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Calcutta that the imported g....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther the sample is zinc ash/residues? 4. The test report dt. 19-7-99 of the chemical examiner of Customs House, Calcutta read as under :- "The sample is in the form of grey coloured heavy, dense irregular lumps of different shapes and size with tarnished and oxidized surfaces. It is composed essentially of metallic zinc together with iron aluminium, metallic oxide and siliceous matter. % of total zinc in the sample = 92.4 by weight % of metallic zinc in the sample = 89.9 by weight % of iron in the sample = 3.7 by weight The sample under reference is other than zinc scrap/ash/residue. It appears to be a dross type of material. However, source/origin of the material under reference may also be verified". The report o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....presence of extraneous metals such as oxide, sulphide, lead, iron etc., the goods have to be assessed as waste and scrap and not as dross. The civil appeal filed by the Revenue against the above decision was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 1995 (80) E.L.T. Page A-280. Similarly in the case of N.J. International v. CC - 1995 (79) E.L.T. 665, the goods found to be having metallic contents ranging between 93.8% and 96.4% were held to be waste and scrap and not dross. He also drew the attention of the Bench to the Tribunal decision in the case of Khalidas Sheet Metal Indus Pvt. Ltd. v. CC - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 165 and referred to Paragraph 4 of the said order. It is beneficial to reproduce Para 4, for better appreciation of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore dismissed". 6. In view of the foregoing decisions ld. ad. submits that the issue is decided in their favour and the findings of the authorities below based upon the two test reports which are not clear, are erroneous. 7. He further submits that the original adjudicating authority has held the goods as classifiable under Tariff Heading 26.20 of the Customs Tariff which covers ash and residue. The test report of the chemical examiner has clearly held that the goods in question are not ash/residue. He submits that all the documents of the foreign supplier including certificate has described the goods as zinc scrap 'SAVES' as per ISRI specification. This fact has not been disputed or found to be incorrect in any of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t reports, which should be followed. 11. After hearing both the sides I find that the questions to be decided in the present appeal is as to whether the goods described by the importer as zinc scrap 'SAVES' is in fact zinc dross and whether the same required a specific licence for importation. Admittedly the two test reports in question, as reproduced above have shown the zinc contents to be more than 92%. The chemical examiner of Customs House has not given a definite finding that the goods are zinc dross but has only observed that the same appears to be a dross type of material. Similarly there is no answer to the questions posed by the Revenue that whether the sample described as zinc scrap 'SAVES' is as per ISRI specification or....