2000(01)LCX0041
IN THE CEGAT, COURT NO. III, NEW DELHI
Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J) and Shri V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
Final Order No. 128/2000-C, dated 27-1-2000 in Appeal No. C/80/98-C
Advocated By : Shri G.L. Rawal, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri H.K. Jain, SDR, for the Respondent.
[Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. - The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Uniplast Impex (P) Ltd. is whether the goods imported by them were Acrylic sheets falling under Sub-heading 3906.90 as claimed by them or Acrylic Scrap falling under Heading 39.15 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.
2. Shri G.L. Rawal, learned Advocate, submitted that the appellants had imported Acrylic sheet pieces/off cuts classifiable under Sub-heading 3920.10 and claimed the clearance under OGL. He alleged that the words “Crushed/Scrap of” were added in the examination note subsequently; that this is evident from the fact that the sentences of the inspection report looks to be erroneous inasmuch as the crushed/scrap of acrylic sheet pieces could not be as per invoice, P/L and B/L attached; secondly these words have been written in small letters to fit into the space left on the Bill of Entry and these words have been written over the signature. We heard learned Advocate on this point for sometime but he could not prove his allegation that these words were added subsequently. The learned SDR also pointed out that after examination a copy of Bill of Entry is given to the importer and if these words were added subsequently, it was not possible for the department to add them on the copy given to the importer. Secondly he submitted that such serious allegation cannot be allowed to be made just like that without any expert opinion obtained by the appellants. He contended that this allegation is totally unjustified. We agree with the learned SDR that the allegation has been made without any supporting evidence and as such is discarded at the outset.
3. Learned Advocate further submitted that the material imported by them is single thermoplastic material out of many kinds of plastic material, cutting of PVC edge, removing paper covering from both sides, washing and crushing through mechanical process; that after undergoing all these processes the material comes to be transformed into primary form and as such it cannot be scraped; that Note 7 to Chapter 39 makes it clear that Heading 39.15 does not apply to waste pairing and scrap of single thermoplastic material transformed into primary form. They had also requested to change the classification from Sub-heading 3920.10 to 3906.90. Learned Advocate also contended that the department had not got the impugned product tested by the Chemical Examiner. The Chemical Examination of the product would have brought the difference between offcuts and the scrap; that the Dy. Commissioner had treated the impugned product as a scrap on account of uneven crushed pieces of acrylic material without sending the material for chemical test. Finally, the learned Advocate pleaded that the redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh in respect of imported goods valued at Rs. 2,19,406/- and penalty of Rs. 50,000/- are on the higher side.
4. Learned SDR countered the arguments by submitting that all the documents submitted by the appellants describe the impugned product as off cuts and sheet pieces and not the material in primary form as claimed by the appellants; that even the letter dated 24-9-1996 from M/s. Rainbow International Corpn., supplier of the goods, refers to the product as acrylic sheet pieces. He further submitted that there was no necessity to test the product in question as it is not in primary form at all.
5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. The appellants themselves, while filing Bill of Entry has described the product as acrylic sheet pieces/offcuts. Even in their letter dated 15-10-1996 they have clearly mentioned that the goods are acrylic sheet pieces and are blocks of irregular sheets in primary form. The commercial invoice of M/s. Rainbow International Corpn. and Bill of Lading refers the product as acrylic sheet pieces/offcuts. Same description is found in certificate of origin as well as packing list. No material has been brought on record by the appellants to show that product is single thermoplastic material. The offcuts of sheets certainly cannot be material in primary form and accordingly Note 7 to Chapter 39 of the Customs Tariff Act is not applicable. We also observe that the adjudicating authority had examined the samples of the product in question and he gave his clear finding that the goods were not covered under Note 6 to Chapter 39 and accordingly it was not treated as goods in primary form. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the appeal and do not interfere with the classification of the product as confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order. However, we agree with the learned Advocate that the redemption fine and the penalty imposed are on the higher side and accordingly we reduce redemption fine to Rs. 50,000/- and penalty is reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. The appeal is disposed of in these terms.
Equivalent 2001 (131) ELT 0179 (Tri. - Del.)
Equivalent 2000 (039) RLT 0042