Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Prontos Pvt. Ltd., Parwanoo vs Commissioner Of Customs (Prev.), ... on 26 February, 2018
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SCO 147-148, SECTOR 17-C, CHANDIGARH-160017 DIVISON BENCH COURT NO.1 Appeal No. C/53128/2014 [Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No. ASR-CUSTOMS-PVR-APP-25-13-14 dated 24.02.2014 passed by the CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh-I] Date of Hearing/Decision: 26.02.2018 For Approval & signature: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) M/s Prontos Pvt. Ltd., Parwanoo Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Amritsar Respondent
________________________________________________ Appearance Shri. Sudeep Singh, Advocate- for the appellant Shri. A.K. Saini, AR- for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. Devender Singh, Member (Technical) FINAL ORDER NO: 60126 / 2018 Per Devender Singh:
The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order.
2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant had filed bill of entry no. 7408164 dated 17.07.2012 through CHA M/s A.B. Agencies, Ludhiana for clearance of 331.73 MT of M.S. Turning & Boring, ISRI Code 2002 to 204 & 220 (hereinafter, the impugned goods) classifying the same under Tariff Item No. 72044900 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The impugned goods were imported from Malaysia, declaring the transaction value of USD 360 PMT, the assessable value of which came to Rs. 66,96,370.93. The examination of the impugned goods was conducted under first check by the Shed Staff, appellants representative alongwith Chartered Engineer Sh. Anil Kumar Soni. As per inspection report dated 08.08.2012 of the Chartered Engineer, the impugned goods weighing 338.620 MT were mix of some quantity of MS Turning Scrap and majority of mill scale found loose in the containers, MS Turning Scrap was estimated to be 30% approximately of whole material and was suitable for melting purpose and the Mill scale was found to be 70% approximately of the whole consignment. Two samples of Mill scale were drawn and tested at Bali laboratories, Ludhiana, and as per their test report, iron content found to be different in both the samples i.e. 59.90% in 1st Sample and 23.70% in 2nd Sample. Hence the average iron content in Mill Scale was 42.50% approximately. As the lab report appeared to be inconclusive the Chartered Engineer recommended further testing. The Chartered Engineer in continuation of his earlier report dated 08.08.2012 submitted 2nd inspection report dated 04.09.2012 which stated that subsequent sample drawn by the Shed Staff was tested at SGS Laboratory, Porbander, Gujrat but the laboratory failed to give the clear report. The sample was again drawn and this time tested at United Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Khanna. The Laboratory vide report no. 2012090101 dated 03.09.2012 had described the chemical composition of the material as 1.29% of Carbon, 0.062% of Phosphorous, 0.044% of Sulphur and 60.07% of Ferrous and that material was having PH value in water as 8.90 which showed that the material was Alkaline in nature and as per the report the material was non-hazardous. As such the impugned goods weighing 338.620 MT were estimated to be Turning 30% i.e. 101.586 MT and out of the balance 70% i.e. 237.034MT, approximately 75% i.e. 177.7755 MT was iron powder and balance 25% i.e. 59.2585 MT was Turning. Hence, total turning in the consignment was approximately 101.586+59.2585 = 160.8445 MT.
3. The matter was adjudicated and in the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority classified the iron dust powder under Customs Tariff Heading 72052990 and rejected the value of impugned goods and confirmed excess duty by enhancing value to USD 400 MT. The goods were confiscated and were allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 9,00,000/- and penalty of Rs. 1,20,000/- was also imposed. In appeal, the ld. Commissioner (A) upheld the order of the adjudicating authority. Aggrieved from the said order, the appellant filed this appeal.
4. The ld. Advocate for the appellant submits that the goods as per the Chartered Engineer report were found to be M.S. Turning and Boring scrap and iron powder. He argued that the same value has been taken for M.S. Turning and Boring scrap as well as iron dust powder, which is not possible as the price of iron dust powder is on lower side. He pleaded that while they are not disputing the mis-declaration part but the value of iron powder has not been assessed correctly.
5. The ld. AR submitted that the appellant had given their no objection in paying duty for iron dust over the invoice value and hence the value of USD 400 MT has been correctly adopted by the department as per the report of the Chartered Engineer. Hence, the impugned order was proper.
6. Heard the parties and examined the record.
7. Admittedly, the impugned goods had been mis-declared by the appellant, which was detected at the time of examination of goods. The report of Chartered Engineer and the United Solutions Laboratory has brought out the percentage of both categories of goods namely the turning and boring scrap and the iron powder. However, we find that the nature of the goods of two categories is different, and adoption of the same value of USD 400 MT for both the categories of goods is therefore not correct, particularly since the price of iron dust powder is admittedly lower as compared to the price of the M.S. Turning and Boring scrap. Accordingly, the adjudicating authority is required to re-determine the value of iron dust powder in the consignment under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and re- adjudicate the matter afresh after assessing the iron powder at its re-determined value
8. In view of the above, the matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority in the above terms.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
Ashok Jindal Devender Singh
Member (Judicial) Member (Technical)
rt
4