CC, MUMBAI Vs. MULTIMETAL LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MULTIMETALS Ltd. the respondent to this appeal by the Commissioner, imported in 1993 two consignments, each weighing 17 tons. In the bill of entry that is filed for their clearance, it declared the goods to be mixed copper scrap echoing description that is found in the invoices for them. Examination of each of these consignments disclosed to the department the presence of what it considered to be prime material of copper in the form of strip, tubes and rods. The Custom House therefore constituted a panel for detailed examination of these consignments. The panel conducted its examination and also obtained technical opinion from a senior process engineer of Hindustan Copper Ltd. As a result, it concluded that each of the consignments contained prime material in the form of strip, tubes and bar, to the extent of 5.8 tons in the case of bill of entry No. 1041, dated 2.11.1993 and 7.51 tons in the case of bill of entry No. 10656, dated 30.8.1993. The certificate of the expert indicated that the strips could be used as such. Tubes could be used after cleaning. Square bar could be used for subsequent operation. Ribbed bar could not be put to "any direct use". The importer waived issue of show cause notice, in its letter dated 15.12.1993 but desired a personal hearing. The matter was therefore placed before the Collector for adjudication. The Collector passed order, after hearing the party and it is his conclusions in that order that are challenged in this appeal. In that order, the Collector has noted that the strips, tubes and bars are prime material. He has taken note of the opinion of the expert panel and the expert opinion that the imported produced before him. After coming to this conclusion, he has ordered that the strips, tubes and bar should be released in the form in which they have been imported. He was subsequently said that no dispute has been raised before him regarding the value of the goods, and found that he has no ground for rejecting the invoice value for assessment. He also said that in view of the fact that the consignment predominantly containing scrap, there was genuine dispute regarding serviceable nature of part of the goods and there is no suppression of value of misdeclaration; or any evidence of mala fides, there was no justification for confiscation of the material or imposition of penalty.

(2.) The contentions in the appeals are that, once the Collector found that the goods to be prime material, it would follow that the value of the prime material would be higher than the value of the scrap. When he accepts that these goods are prime material, it is evident that there has been misdeclaration. The goods ought to have been confiscated and penalty imposed on the importer. It is also contended that there was very much dispute brought to the notice of the Collector regarding the value and liability confiscation.

(3.) AS we have noted, the importer had waived issue of written notice. The proportion that was placed before the Collector for adjudication is contained in a note dated 17.12.1993 of the appraising officer of the Central Intelligent unit of the Custom House, Countersigned by the Assistant Collector and Additional Collector. This note clearly proposed "adjudication on above grounds of misdeclaration, classification and valuation", proposed penalty on the importer, after giving detailed submissions as to the method of valuation of the goods. The Collector has therefore erred, when he says that there was no dispute relating to the value.