TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1981 (9) TMI 281
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he import is canalised through the Mineral and Metals Trading Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") which awards contracts for the raw material supply to the actual users on the basis of worldwide tenders floated by the Corporation. 2. The Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports had issued a release Order dated March 29, 1974 in favour of the petitioners whereby the petitioners were required to approach the Corporation for securing the allotment of 100 tonnes of hot rolled stainless steel strips in coils of C.I.F. value of ₹ 10,00,000/-. In pursuance of the aforesaid release order, the petitioners approached the Corporation and placed an order and the Corporation in its turn entered into a cont....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n specified in Item No. 63(30) of that Schedule from so much of that portion of the duty of Customs leviable thereon which is specified in the First Schedule as is in excess of 60 per cent ad valorem. The Central Board of Revenue has issued instructions to determine which pieces of steel could be classified as plates or sheets. The instructions were that pieces of steel of not less than 1/8' thickness i.e., 3.175 mm. are to be classified for the purpose of assessment as 'plates' and these of thickness less than 1/8" are to be classified as 'sheets'. The Docks Shed Appraiser asserted to levy 200% ad valorem duty on the imported goods on the basis that the advantage of the notification dated May 29, 1971 was not available as the goods im....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... February 4, 1975 in respect of the two consignments and the amount of refund claimed was ₹ 7,22,771.60 and ₹ 6,65,568.60. The refund applications were considered by the Assistant Collector after the proceedings were remanded to him by the appellate authority for de novo adjudication and by order dated February 13, 1976, the Assistant Collector held that the average thickness of the goods being 3.151 mm., the imported material falls under category of 'sheets' assessable to duty under Item No. 63(20A) and the claim for refund was not justified. The order was confirmed in appeal on November 12, 1976 by the Appellate Collector of Customs and the revision preferred by the petitioners before the Government of India ended in dismissal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e coils at edge and not after unwinding the entire coil. 8. Thereupon the Deputy Collector directed measurements of thickness by the Customs House Laboratory. Even the Customs House Laboratory did not unwind the entire coil though the petitioners were ready and willing to bear the expenses of such unwinding. The Deputy Chief Chemist of the Officer of the Chemical Analyser, Bombay Customs House, took six coils and the thickness found at edge, 40 mm. inside and 90 mm. inside was noted. According to the petitioners, the analysis of the above measurements shows that in the majority of cases the thickness was registered above 3.175 mm. while the Department claims that the average thickness was 3.165 mm. The Assistant Collector in his order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....according to the table and this guideline itself pre-supposes that the thickness will be measured on uniform basis and not by taking into consideration the thickness found only at the edges of the coil. As the authorities below have denied the request made by the petitioners and the measurements arrived at are clearly faulty, the claim of the petitioners for refund requires to be granted. 10. It is also required to be noted that the hot rolled stainless steel strips in a coil form is a canalised item and the import is permitted only through the Minerals and Metals Trading Corporation Limited. The contract entered into by the Corporation clearly provides that the goods ordered were of thickness of 3.25 mm. and it is not in dispute that....