Prem Cables Pvt.Ltd. vs CC, Jaipur

None present for the appellant nor is there any adjournment application. Appeal is six years old and appellant is enjoying the benefit of interim order

dated 26.2.2009. When appellant made application for early hearing on 6.3.2013 that was dismissed finding no scope for listing the matter soon.Â

Matter has reached today on its own turn. Absence of appellant shows that appellant is not interested to contest its appeal. Considering that keeping

the appeal pending shall be abuse of process of law, there shall be no adjournment in the matter. Assistance of Id. DR is taken to dispose the

matter on merit.Â

Ld. DR says that when there was patent violation of law and mis-declaration of goods, appellant shall not be able to get any relief before the

Tribunal. He further says that the importer in the B.E.No.00035 dated 14.5.2007 filed before the Customs has declared the goods Aluminium Scrap

“TWANG†with 65% recovery as per ISRI. As per ISRI guidelines for non-ferrous scrap, the code “TWANG†has been defined as

“Insulated Aluminium Wire Scrap†which shall consist of Aluminium wire scrap with various types of insulation to be sold on a sample or

recovery basis, subject to arrangement between buyer and seller. Thus per ISRI norms “TWANG†is the scrap of insulated aluminium wire

consisting of Aluminium wire scrap with insulation material only. Ld. DR says that as per ISRI guidelines non ferrous scrap do not specify recovery

of any other metal except aluminium, from insulated aluminium wire scrap codified as “TWANGâ€​"".Â

Heard Revenue and also gone through findings of Id. Adjudicating authority beginning from para 3.1 to para 3.15 of adjudication order dated

15.9.2008.Â

Goods imported under Bill of Entry No.00035 dated 14.5.2007 declaring the goods as Aluminium Scrap-Twang' with 65% recovery as

prescribed by !SRI was claimed by appellant to be classifiable under Customs Tariff Sub Heading 76020010 and valued at Rs.13,06,141/-. The

import consignment consisted pieces of different sizes of insulated power cables, in mutilated, worn and torn state. The samples drawn from the

import consignment were found to be 'single core cable scrap containing 23.61% of Aluminium wire and 31.95% of Copper wire by weight' and

'three core cable scarp containing Aluminium and Copper wires as 43.71% and 24.50% respectively. Samples drawn were tested from CRCL,

New Delhi and the test reports dated 20.3.2008 received also confirmed the presence of Aluminium and Copper as 23.5% and 31.8% respectively in

single core cable scrap and 44.10% and 24.60% respectively in three core cable scrap.Â

CRCL's finding remained un-rebutted by the appellant. But there was contention of the appellant that CRCL report was faulty as is apparent from

para 2.3 of the adjudication order. The ground of challenge was that the test conducted on a single piece of cable does not represent entire

consignment. Ld. Adjudicating Authority did not find substance in the contention of the appellant. He also found composition of the goods to be

different in para 3.5 of the adjudication order. Examining Rule 3 (b) of General Interpretative Rules, Id. Authority thoroughly tested composition of the

goods with the finding of CRCL and reached to his conclusion about the nature and composition submitting to classification asserted by Revenue.Â

In the memo of appeal before the Tribunal, Appellant has only reiterated the submission made before the adjudicating authority. There is nothing

noticeable ground to discard findings of the adjudicating authority. It is the submission of the appellant in ground of appeal that no action of appellant

has caused loss to the Customs. Such plea is untenable for the reason that there was mis- declaration of goods as to the description of the imported

goods. We may add that interpretative rule does not come to the rescue of the appellant for the reason that composition and contents of the goods

proved mis-declaration of nature and description thereof. Therefore, order of adjudicating authority cannot be said to be faulty nor suffering from

any legal infirmity. Accordingly appeal is dismissed.Â

(Dictated & pronounced in the open court)