(1.) The appellant imported three consignments declared to be Heavy Melting Scrap and filed three Bills of Entry for their clearance. The consignments consisted of old, used and rusted pipes. On intelligence that the goods are misdeclared as HMS, the DRI Officers intercepted the containers and examined the goods. All the containers were found to contain old, used and rusted pipes. The appellant agreed to pay the differential i.e. difference between the duty leviable on pipes and the one leviable on scrap, and deposited the differential duty. The value of the goods was revised to US 150 per metric tone from US 110 per metric tone declared by the importer.
(2.) The Commissioner while adjudicating the case classified the impugned goods under Chapter heading 7304.29 as pipes, determined the value as US 150 per metric tone confirmed the differential duty, confiscated the goods in question under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and imposed penalty on the importer. Hence this appeal.
(3.) The main contention of the appellant is that the imported goods consisted HMS, that the used old and rusted pipes cannot be classified as pipes as such pipes are not understood as pipes in the market, that the goods under import were used only as melting scrap; that proof to that effect was produced before the Commissioner; that what was contracted for was only scrap but not pipes; that certificates of experts in the field suggest that old, used and rusted pipes are known to be scrap only; that pipes should have definite cross section thickness and other parameters indicated in the I -S; that the impugned goods do not come anywhere near those specifications; that for the goods to be classified under a particular heading they should qualify for such classification and that the Commissioner erred in rejecting the transaction value, confiscating the goods and imposing penalties.