Surya Laminates Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Surya Laminates vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Oct 23, 2002

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/29165

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/29165
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, J T J.H.
Decided On: Oct 23, 2002
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Surya Laminates

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (2003)(152)ELT313Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....declaring them as "rolled/ defective grade". the unit price declared was us $920 pmt c & f. on examination of the goods, they appeared to be of prime grade. the importers contested this observation. they relied upon the certificates of the manufacturer describing the goods as of 30pg 218 specification which was attributable to defective goods. the goods were then examined by the customs expert appraisers on various considerations they found the goods to be of prime grade. it was therefore proposed to raise the value to us $1150 pmt cif resulting in differential duty amounting to rs. 3,35,151/-. mis-declaration was also alleged. the importers waived issue of a written show causes notice. in personal hearing they continued to insist that the goods were of defective grade. the commissioner examined the invoice and the faxes given by the suppliers.finding certain contradictions therein, he refused to place reliance thereupon. he reiterated the departmental expert opinion. he confiscated the goods permitting redemption, confirmed the differential duty and also imposed the penalty. against this order the importers filed an appeal and also an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty imposed. miscellaneous application was also filed for having the samples of the contested goods examined by a reputed laboratory. the bench noted that in an identical situation, another bench of the tribunal had directed such testing to be done. the bench also noted that this specific request had been made before the commissioner but that it had not been accepted by him. the bench directed the samples to be drawn and tested in the central revenue control laboratory (crcl). this order was issued on 27-7-1999. since there was no compliance on this direction, the importer appellants filed another application. the bench vide order no. c-i/3426/wzb/2000, dated 28-9-2000 dismissed the application on the undertaking by the departmental representative to persue the matter with the.....

Full Judgment

1. The appellants purchased on high sea sale basis CRCO Silicon Steel Coils declaring them as "Rolled/ Defective Grade". The unit price declared was US $920 PMT C & F. On examination of the goods, they appeared to be of prime grade. The importers contested this observation. They relied upon the certificates of the manufacturer describing the goods as of 30PG 218 specification which was attributable to defective goods. The goods were then examined by the customs expert appraisers on various considerations they found the goods to be of prime grade. It was therefore proposed to raise the value to US $1150 PMT CIF resulting in differential duty amounting to Rs. 3,35,151/-. Mis-declaration was also alleged. The importers waived issue of a written show causes notice. In personal hearing they continued to insist that the goods were of defective grade. The Commissioner examined the invoice and the faxes given by the suppliers.

Finding certain contradictions therein, he refused to place reliance thereupon. He reiterated the departmental expert opinion. He confiscated the goods permitting redemption, confirmed the differential duty and also imposed the penalty. Against this order the importers filed an appeal and also an application for waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty imposed. Miscellaneous application was also filed for having the samples of the contested goods examined by a reputed laboratory. The Bench noted that in an identical situation, another bench of the Tribunal had directed such testing to be done. The Bench also noted that this specific request had been made before the Commissioner but that it had not been accepted by him. The bench directed the samples to be drawn and tested in the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL). This order was issued on 27-7-1999. Since there was no compliance on this direction, the importer appellants filed another application. The Bench vide Order No. C-I/3426/WZB/2000, dated 28-9-2000 dismissed the application on the undertaking by the departmental representative to persue the matter with the Commissioner.

The department was warned that if the directions were not complied with, the Tribunal would accept the submissions of the appellants.

2. An application was made for early hearing on 3-1-2002 in which reference was made to the test report dated 19-9-2000 in which the CRCL had not made any opinion in the absence of standard specification for such goods. The application was allowed and the appeal was posted for final disposal on 3-10-2002.

3. Shri D.P. Gupta departmental representative shows us a letter from the Custom House dated 30-3-2002 in which it is averred that the director CRCL vide his letter No. 34/Cus/99, dated 27-9-2002 had re-confirmed that the goods were free from defects and hence prime.

4. We have seen this letter. In this letter the director CRCL had referred to the earlier letter dated 19-9-2000 and on the strength thereof has declared the goods as prime.

5. We have seen the various reports. The relevant portion of the earlier letter dated 19-9-2000 read as under :- "Each of the ten sample in a cut piece from a metallic sheets of thickness less than 0.5m, each having grey uniformly smooth surface.

The base metallic sheet is coated on both sides with Chromium/Chromium Oxide, coating is adherent and does not detached during cutting or on heating. Each of the samples of the sheet is free from harmful surface and defects such as scales, rust blisters lamination, pittings etc each answers test for the presence of Silicon.

I could not lay/hands or any standard specification for CRGO Silicon Steel Sheets/Coils. Thus detailed quality parameters could not be determined." 6. It is clear on perusal of the letter that the director did not declare these goods as of prime quality.

"The test report issued vide this office letter of even number dated 19-9-2000 is clear and self explanatory. In the aforesaid test report it has been clearly stated as under :- Each of the samples of the sheet is free from harmful surface and defects such as scales, rust, blisters, laminations, pittings etc".

The IS No. 7226-1974 (Reaffirmed-1992) for "Cold-rolled Medium, High Carbon and Low Carbon Alloy Steel Strip for General Engineering Purposes"--at Sr. No. 6 reads as under :- 6.1 The cold rolled steel strip shall be free from harmful surface defects, such as scales, rust blisters, laminations, pitting cracked edges, etc".

In view of above it appears that the samples under reference conform to the aforesaid IS specification in respect of "Freedom from defects".

8. We find that the goods covered under the IS specification are not described in the. same manner as the contested goods are. The succeeding Director cannot take the words of a previous Director and arrived at a totally different conclusion, with regard to the same goods on the application of a specification which prima facie does not seem to apply.

9. The manufacturers certificate declaring the goods to be defective speak as "core loss". The Commissioner deals with these superficially.

There is no word in the laboratory report about the core loss aspect.

The reports deals with surface characters alone.

10. We thus find that the material on which the Customs held the goods to be of prime grade does not stand detailed scrutiny. In the absence of adequate contest, the declaration of the importers must be accepted.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Surya Laminates vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject MRTP Same Judge J Balasundaram, J T J.H.