TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 783
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed as per Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Appellant submitted that the goods were imported as per the Import Policy conditions prevailed at the time of import and to support the declaration, they produced certificate from accredited agency. However the Adjudication authority rejected their request vide Order-in-Original dated 06.05.2010, adopted value as proposed in the SCN and allowed Appellant to redeem the goods on payment of Rs.3,00,000/- as fine and Rs.1,50,000/- as penalty. Aggrieved by the said Order, appeal was filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) who rejected their appeal. Aggrieved by the impugned order, present appeal is filed. 2. When the appeal was taken up for hearing, Learned Counsel for the Appellant drew our attention to the documents including sale contract dated 23.12.2009, invoice issued by overseas supplier dated 31.12.2009, relevant pages of the Hand Book of Procedure related to import of metallic waste, Scrap etc; Appendix file showing the list of inspection & certification agency including the agency M/s. World Wide Logistics, Pre-shipment certificate etc; showing that the goods imported by the Appellant are Heavy Melting Scrap and it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hartered Engineer was conducted; pre-shipment inspection certificate and certificate issued by M/s. Alloys and Metal Test Services, Mumbai were ignored. Also, the request of the appellants for mutilating the goods before clearance was also not allowed. It is the contention of the appellants that by nature steel melting scrap is likely to have some defective secondary parts or articles. However, the supplier treated the same as scrap only. It is a matter of fact that the said scrap was utilised in their factory for melting only. Therefore, denying the classification and the exemption are bad in law. 5. We find that the appellants have a point in their favour. We find that the adjudicating authority has not explained as to why various certificates submitted by the appellants were not accepted. It is not known as to why the department has not allowed the request for mutilation of the goods before clearance. Chartered Engineer's examination was also not ordered. This being the factual milieu, we find that department cannot reclassify the goods unilaterally on the basis of the examination report of officers alone. Technical opinion given by the pre-inspection certificate and by M/s. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me as per Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962. Moreover in such imports from overseas sources, Appellant can only verify the conditions in the Import Policy and there is no opportunity for the Appellant to verify the content of the goods before its shipment. Considering the same, denial of the request for mutilation is unsustainable. The authorities also do not dispute the fact that pre-shipment certificate from the port of export as certified the goods as Heavy Metal Scrap (HMS) and the certificate has been issued by the agency registered with DGFT. All other documents like invoice, packing list, etc., also describe the goods as heavy metal scrap. 7. In the case of Prince Fortified Vs CC Tuticorin (2019 (369) E.L.T 1228 (Tri.Chennai)), the Tribunal has observed as follows : 5. Keeping aside this controversy which is of technical nature, we proceed to consider the merits of the case. The facts reveal that appellant is a regular importer of HMS. The Purchase Order was for supply of HMS for use in their factory. The proforma invoices described the goods as HMS. Again the invoices issued by supplier described the goods as HMS/Re-Rollable scrap. The pre-shipment test reports by the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Commissioner has not noted down the features of the things which are in question. Of course, it is true that one of the partners of the respondent has given a statement, wherein, he has admitted about the existence of some wires, etc. 10. At this juncture, the Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent has contended that those wires are not in cable forms and it is nothing but small wires. Under the said circumstances, the authority has permitted the respondent, to get the goods in mutilated form and therefore, the contention put forth on the side of the appellant cannot be accepted. 11. Even in the statement alleged to have been given by one of the partners of the respondent, complete description as well as length and breadth of the things which are in question have not been mentioned. In fact, in the statement alleged to have been given by one of the partners of the respondent, only small quantity as well as length of wires have been mentioned. Under the said circumstances, the Court can come to a conclusion that the things which are in question cannot be couched as usable things. 12. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the available materials on record, has ri....