1997 (9) TMI 398

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s arise out of the common order-in-original they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. M/s. Kinetic Technology (hereinafter referred to as the importers) had imported a consignment of seamless pipes which they declared as nickel iron based alloy tubes. They declared the classification under sub-heading 7507.02 of the Customs Tariff. (Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that the correct classification should have been 7507.12 as there is no sub-heading 7507.02 in the Customs Tariff). Subsequently the show cause notice was issued proposing the classification under sub heading No. 7304.39 of the tariff. In the show cause notice the charge of under-valuation was also alleged. It was also al....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....notice they had proposed the classification under sub-heading No. 7304.49, although no specific reference in the show cause notice was made for any sub-heading. He submitted that the importers have acted in bona fide manner and there was no ground for imposing the penalty of Rs. One lakh on the appellant. Shri Kamaljeet Singh, Advocate appearing for the clearing agent M/s. Air Implex Cargo Agency referred to the show cause notice and submitted that in the show cause notice, no penalty was proposed on M/s. Air Implex Cargo Agency and the penalty was proposed only on the importers which in this case was M/s. Kinetic Technology. 4. We have carefully considered the matter. We find that in the bill of entry the importers had declared class....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el containing by weight 1.2% or less of carbon and 10.5% or more of cromium with or without any elements." We find that in the goods imported the carbon content was 0.077 % and the cromium content was 19.83%. As the carbon content was less than 1.2% and as the cromium content was more than 10.5 %, the goods were covered by the definition of stainless steel in the tariff. Thus on classification we consider that the view taken by the adjudicating authority is correct. Coming to the valuation, the appellant has contended that the goods were imported at CIF basis. They had paid only the amount which was contracted and even when the goods were supplied by air, the extra freight was borne by the supplier. They had produced a copy of the telex da....