Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of records, we find that the lower authority has erred in law in coming to conclusion that the classification of the goods imported would fall under 79020090.

6. We find that the ITC (HS) classification specifically talks about import of zinc scrap and ISRI code under 79020010 wherein in respect of the goods imported, the description reads as under:-

Prime zinc die casts covered by ISRI Code word Shelf (85% zinc)  free from corrosion or oxidation.

7. Appellant declared the goods imported by them under this category. It is the finding of the adjudicating authority that the ISRI Code Shelf is not applicable in this case. It is necessary to reproduce the ISRI definition of zinc dross shelf which reads as under:-

Zinc dross shelf shall consist of metal skimmed from the top of pot of molten zinc die cast metal. Must be unsweated, unfluxed, shiny, smooth, metallic and free from corrosion or oxidation. Should be poured in moulds or in small moulds weighing not over 75 pounds each. Zinc shall be minimum 85%. It is not the case of the Revenue that the zinc content in the goods imported by the appellant is less than 85%. To that extent, the adjudicating authority concedes the factual position. The only point picked up by the adjudicating authority to hold that the goods are liable for confiscation, is that the weight of the slab imported by the appellant is 500 kgs. It can be seen from the above reproduced ISRI definition of zinc dross shelf that the zinc scrap can be poured in moulds or in small moulds weighing 75 kgs each. This definition would clearly indicate that an importer can import zinc dross shelf poured in moulds, as the said definition itself indicates that it should be poured in moulds, the goods imported are nothing but ingots poured in moulds. On this factual matrix, we find that the appellant has made out a case.
6. We have seen the test report of the Chemical Examiner. The same shows the presence of zinc to the extent of 92% by weight i.e. more than 90% in which case it cannot be held to be falling under the restricted category. The lower authorities had relied upon the said report to the extent that zinc dross is not under the grade seal. However, the appellants have contended that these codes like sea, score, gray are different names by ISRI and if the goods are not, seal they would fall under any other grade. In as much as, all the grades are freely importable and attract the same rate of duty, no intention can be attributed to the appellant to mis-declare the goods as seal grade. They have also contended that at the very opinion that zinc dross is not of seal grade, the chemical examiner has not given any reasons as to why the same does not have the characteristics of seal grade. He has also not given any opinion as to under which category the zinc dross falls. As such, they have strongly contended that the chemical examiner report is in-complete and un-reliable. It is also seen that the appellants have made a request for retest of the samples which does not stand accepted by the lower authority.