Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. Ld.counsel for the appellants have produced 4 Bills of Entry and also corresponding invoices for the year 2003. We find that the prersent consignments were imported in July, 1999 and it will not be proper to compare the price prevailing in 1999 to that of 2003 and therefore, the said contention has no value. We also note that as per ISRi specification, Relay code covers the item lead covered copper cable free of armored covered cable, and foreign material. In the present case, we find that the test results indicate about 18% to 20% metals which is polymeric compound, fibre, nylon gasket. Jt.Director, New Custom House Laboratory has also clarified in his letter that the conductor strands are composed of copper wire and they are covered/jacketed with polymeric material based on polyethylene, further covered with nonwoven fabric which is further jacketed/covered with lead sheathing. It was also found that the scrap was not uniform but it also consisted of two other types of scrap. Under the circumstances, it cannot be said that the goods imported are Lead Scrap Relay. We also note that the percentage of copper in 3 out of 4 samples tested by the Custom House Lab and M/s. Geo Chem Lab was found to be more that of lead. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the goods cannot be considered as Lead Scrap Relay but has to be considered as copper scrap and it did not meet any of the specification specified in the ITC Policy, therefore it is not freely importable and it is a restricted item. 5. Contemporary import of M/s. Nizalco Metal (P)Ltd. is a valid import and there is no reason to ignore the same. We also note that under the existing circumstances, there is no way other than to go for best judgement which in turn will be to assess the value based upon the percentage of copper and lead and prevailing prices of copper and lead. The appellants have not been able to find any fault with this method of computation except stating that the transaction value should be accepted. We have gone through the various case laws quoted by the appellants. These case laws are applicable in the facts and circumstances in those cases. The facts and circumstances of the present case are not similar or comparable with the facts and circumstances of various case laws submitted by the ld.Counsel. In fact, we do not consider it necessary to discuss each of these case laws here.