Skip to content

Kashyap Engineering and Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Tamil Nadu
Decided On
Reported in(1985)LC966Tri(Chennai)
AppellantKashyap Engineering and
RespondentCollector of Customs
.....usa ukand alloy 83/4/6/7 81/3/7/9 83/3/9/5designation leaded red leaded leaded gun brass semi-red brass metal---------------------------------------------------------------specifi- astmb-145-63 astm, b-145-63 bs: 1400:1961cation no.alloy 4b alloy 5a lgi-c----------------------------------------------------------------specifi-cation date 1966 1966 1961----------------------------------------------------------------compositiontin 3. 25-4.25 2. 25-3. 5 2. 0-4. 0zinc 5. 0 -8.0 7. 00-10.0 7. 0-10. 0lead 5. 0 -7.0 6. 0 -8.0 3. 0-6. 0nickel 1.0 max 1.0 max 2.0 maxcopper 82.0-83.75 78.0-82.0 remainder...if we compare the results of the tests with the composition adopted either in the u.s.a. or in the u.k. for this alloy--83-3-95 leaded gunmetal-we find that none of the articles exported conform.....
1. Appeals under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 praying that in the circumstances stated therein, the Tribunal will be pleased to set aside the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras and order grant of drawback of duty to the appellants.

2. These appeals coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the argument of Shri I. Arokiaswamy, authorised representative for the appellants and upon hearing the arguments of Shri A. Vijayaraghavan, Departmental Representative for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following: 3. As the principle involved in the three cases is a common one, we deal with them together.

4. The appellant firm had exported "gun metal components' for sluice valves and claimed drawback under sub-serial No. 3817(2) relating to "Gun Metal Valves, all sorts, and parts thereof" of the Schedule to the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971. On test the Customs House found that the goods did not conform to specifications for gun metal but that they are really of brass. Drawback admissible under Item 3805(c) as for brass was granted. The appellant-firm preferred a supplementary claim for an amount being the difference between that worked out at the rate under Item 3817(2) and the amount already granted. This supplementary claim was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras. An appeal to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Madras was also rejected on the basis of test results under which the goods were found to be brass manufactures. The present appeals are against these orders. The details of the three appeals are as below:------------------------------------------------------------------S.No. Appeal Order of the Asstt.

Order of the Collector No. Collector.


CD (MAS) SI/1441/79 TI C. 48/286/80 74/83 dt. 8.9.80 dt. CD (MAS) SI/1727-1929/79 TI C. 48/49/80 dt. 1.7.82.

75/83 dt. 13.3.803.

CD (MAS) SI/4936 to 4939/79 TI. C. 48/48/80 dt. 1.7.82.

76/83 dt. 6.3.1980-----------------------------------------------------------------S. Shipping Description of Results ofNo.Bill No. goods tests----------------------------------------------------------------- (5) (6) (7)1.

3494/27.3.79 Body-Ring Copper 83.5% Tin 5.5%2 578/7.4.79 Body Ring 4 Copper 81.4% Tin 5.7%3 156/2.7.79 Spindle nut Copper 81.0% Body ring Tin 5.1% 1114/11.6.79* Body ring Copper 82.6% Tin 5.1% Wedge Ring which formed part of the goods were allowed drawback as part of gun metals.

5. Before us the representative of the appellants referred to ASTM standard in regard to gun metal and claimed that the goods conform to that specification. Copper and its alloy and in particular brass has been in use since ancient times. There has, therefore, been a large spread in the composition of the alloy depending on the use to which it is put. As the goods under consideration are parts of valves, it is only appropriate that we refer to the relevant specification for such goods prescribed in ASTM, as the alloy is commonly referred to as leaded brats. AMSI/ASTM B-62-80 refers to alloy used for component castings of valves, flanges and fittings. It is stated that the corrmon trade name of this alloy is 85-5-5-5. In the 1980 Annual Book of ASTM Standards under para 4.1 the chemical composition of the alloy is prescribed and set out in Table 1 to the Standard; the extract below is the composition in respect of the main elements of the alloy: Element Composition % max (Except as indicated) Copper 84. 0-86. 0 Tin 4. 0-06. 0 Lead 4. 0-06. 0 Zinc 4. 0-06. 0 ...

If we compare the composition as in ASTM with that found on test, it is found that none of the goods exported fall within the limits for either tin or lead or zinc as the case may be. Hence, it cannot be said that the goods exported conform to the ASTM Standard for gun metal used for castings of valves and its parts.

6. The representative of the appellants also made a reference to the composition of leaded gun metal as stated in Table 5 appended to the Book "Gunmetal Castings" by Frank Hudson and D.A. Hudson (First published in 1967). There the specification of another alloy, referred to as is dealt with. The specification given for this alloy as followed in the United States of America as well as in the United Kingdom is as below:--------------------------------------------------------------Country USA USA UKand Alloy 83/4/6/7 81/3/7/9 83/3/9/5Designation Leaded Red Leaded Leaded Gun Brass semi-red Brass Metal---------------------------------------------------------------Specifi- ASTMB-145-63 ASTM, B-145-63 BS: 1400:1961cation No.Alloy 4B Alloy 5A LGI-C----------------------------------------------------------------Specifi-cation Date 1966 1966 1961----------------------------------------------------------------CompositionTin 3. 25-4.25 2. 25-3. 5 2. 0-4. 0Zinc 5. 0 -8.0 7. 00-10.0 7. 0-10. 0Lead 5. 0 -7.0 6. 0 -8.0 3. 0-6. 0Nickel 1.0 max 1.0 max 2.0 maxCopper 82.0-83.75 78.0-82.0 Remainder...

If we compare the results of the tests with the composition adopted either in the U.S.A. or in the U.K. for this alloy--83-3-95 Leaded Gunmetal-we find that none of the articles exported conform to the specification either in USA or in U.K. It is thus seen that according to the standards referred to by the appellant-firm, the goods exported are not castings of leaded gun metal.

7. The Departmental Representative claims that the goods are nothing but brass. He referred to the definition of brass as contained in ASTM as Copper-Base Alloys in which "the zinc content is greater than the contents of any other individual element (excepting copper)". This is somewhat a broad definition and does not take into account the special category of alloys in which tin/-lead are important elements in that they give certain basic characteristics to the alloy as sharpness and machinability. It is also relevant to point out that what is treated as brass in U.S.A is treated as gun metal etc. in U.K. We are, therefore, unable to accept that the goods exported are merely of brass.

8. In the appeals before us the appellant-firm has advanced an alternate claim that if the goods are not accepted as a gun metal, drawback may be granted according to the various metals present in them under Serial No. 3709. It is conceded by the Departmental Representative that in respect of supplementary claim for drawback, no particular time-limit applies. In the light of what we have stated earlier, the goods exported do not conform to any known alloy of copper--whether as brass or as gun metal. We, therefore, allow the appeal and order that the supplementary claims be dealt with in terms of Sl. No. 3709 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules 1971 in these three cases.

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