BIRLA PERICALESE Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the assessee, who is neither present nor represented today despite notice. The respondent is represented by SDR. We are not inclined to keep this old appeal pending.

(2.) THE appellants had imported "Rabble Arm for MHF (Multiple Hearth Furnace)" and filed a Bill of Entry on 5.6.98 for its clearance. The goods was assessed to duty under sub -heading 7506.20 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act on the basis of the technical write -up and test certificate of the supplier furnished by the importer. Basic Customs Duty (BCD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) were paid accordingly and clearance of the goods obtained by the party. Subsequently the Department issued a Show -cause notice on 28.12.98 proposing to classify the goods under sub -heading 7325.99 and demanding differential BCD and SAD. This notice was based on a revised test certificate produced by the importer subsequent to clearance of the goods. This certificate provided the following chemical composition for eight samples of the goods.

(3.) AFTER examining the records and hearing ld. SDR, we find that the demand of duty is based on the test report furnished by the importers themselves. According to that report, the percentage of iron exceeded that of each of the other elements contained therein. Section Note 5(a) reads as under: Classification of alloys (other than ferroalloys and master alloys as defined in Chapter 72 and 74):