Skip to content


Vaz Forwarding Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1983)LC1334Tri(Delhi)
AppellantVaz Forwarding Pvt. Ltd.
RespondentCollector of Customs
Excerpt:
.....resisted the appellants' claim on the ground that item 63(30) ict covered rods or bars while the bill of entry and the invoice in this case described the subject goods as forgings 260 mm. the appellants countered this objection by producing their correspondence with the foreign supplier. they showed the foreign supplier's order confirmation which described the goods contracted for as forged bars.the particulars of this order confirmation were quoted in the import invoice of the consignment. the appellants also produce. another bill of entry bearing no. 337 dated 27.1.75 wherein another consignment of 220 mm. diameter shipped against the same order confirmation had been assessed by the department under item 63(30) ict\ apart from the evidence shown to us by the appellants, we also find.....
Judgment:
2. The appellants seek re-assessment of alloy steel imported by them at lower rate of duty under Item 63(30) of the erstwhile Indian Customs Tariff. Their claim was rejected "by the lower authorities as unsubstantiated. During the hearing before us, the Department's representative resisted the appellants' claim on the ground that Item 63(30) ICT covered rods or bars while the Bill of Entry and the invoice in this case described the subject goods as forgings 260 mm. The appellants countered this objection by producing their correspondence with the foreign supplier. They showed the foreign supplier's order confirmation which described the goods contracted for as forged bars.

The particulars of this order confirmation were quoted in the import invoice of the consignment. The appellants also produce. another Bill of Entry bearing No. 337 dated 27.1.75 wherein another consignment of 220 mm. diameter shipped against the same order confirmation had been assessed by the Department under Item 63(30) ICT\ Apart from the evidence shown to us by the appellants, we also find that the subject goods were described in the relevant Bill of Entry No. 105D dated 8.10.74 as "Steel in Bars forgings 260 m/m. Rd.". In view of all this evidence, we are satisfied that the subject goods were alloy steel bars and were duly covered by Item 63(30) ICT. Accordingly, we allow this appeal with consequential relief to the appellants.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //