1998(08)LCX0149

IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI

S/Shri Lajja Ram, Member (T) and S.S. Kang, Member (J)

R.M. MITTAL STEELS PVT. LTD.

Versus

COLLR. OF CUS. (JUDICIAL), NEW DELHI

Final Order No. 658/98-B2, dated 28-8-1998 in Appeal No. C/600/94-B2

Advocated By : Shri K.K. Anand, Advocate, for the Appellant.

Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR, for the Respondent.

[Order per : S.S. Kang, Member (T)]. - The appellant filed this appeal against the order-in-appeal dated 22-6-1998, passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant made import of impugned goods and filed bill of entry describing the goods as mild steel melting scrap and claimed assessment under sub-heading 7204.10 of the Customs Tariff. On the inspection of the goods, it was found that the goods were steel plates of uniform size. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant on the ground that the appellant had misdeclared the goods and the impugned goods are correctly classifiable under Heading 7211.90 of the Customs Tariff and the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 112(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. After adjudication the adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and gave option to the appellant to redeem the goods from payment of fine of Rs. 40,000/- and of personal penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act and the adjudicating authority ordered the assessment of the goods on merits.

3. The appellant filed the appeal and the same was dismissed.

4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the impugned goods were in mixed length, width and thickness and the goods were not cut to size and shape. Hence the goods were only scrap. He submits that both the authorities below had admitted the fact that steel sheets/plates were of various sizes and of various thickness. He submits that the steel sheets/plates were not capable of being housed in the same condition for the manufacture of any other article. The same were only fit for melting. He relied upon the communication with the supplier to prove that the impugned goods were nothing but the scrap. He submits that the offer was made by the supplier to supply the steel scrap and the appellant wrote to the supplier showing their interest in importing melting steel scrap. In these circumstances, ld. Counsel submits that appeal be allowed.

5. Heard Shri R.S. Sangia, JDR.

6. In this case the appellant made import of the steel sheet/plates and described these goods in the bill of entry as mild steel melting scrap. On examination of the goods, it was found that all the sheets/plates have the same shape and size and the goods were lubricated with the oil to avoid rusting and the steel plates were packed in a good manner. The Collector of Customs in the impugned order held that impugned steel sheets and plates were of three broad category in relation to length, width and thickness. In view of this finding of the fact, we do not find any merit in the appellant’s contention that the goods were of mixed length, width and thickness hence is only scrap. The Collector of Central Excise in the impugned order had categorically gave finding that no surface defect was found on the goods and the goods were found to have been lubricated with the oil. From the appeal papers, we find that at page 63, a letter from M/s. Arm Shiled SDN BHD issued to the Pritgum Pvt. Ltd. who supplied the impugned goods to the appellant clearly shows that the impugned goods were cold rolled central plates. In view of the examination report showing that the goods are steel plates and have uniform size, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

_______

Equivalent 1999 (108) ELT 582 (Tribunal)