' I. MAHMUD, J.-Constitutional Petitions Nos. 161/70, 162/70, 166/70,185/70, 221/70, 232/70, 262-264/70, V2-273/70, 276/70, 278/70, 560/70, 561/70,141/71, 158-160/71, 154/71, 196/71 and 267/72, raise common questions and facts of law relating to the imposition of Customs Duty on consignment of Iron and Steel scrap imported by the petitioners for re-rolling purposes. They have been heard together and will be disposed of by this judgment.
2. During the relevant period, the import of iron and steel scrap and waste was permitted under the Export Bonus Scheme. Notification PISC (2) 861/66, dated 3rd June, 1968, defines "re-rolling iron and steel scrap" as consisting mainly of steel mill rejects like ingots, blooms, slabs and billets, crop- ends, deformed rejects from re-heating furnaces, scrap from continuous rolling mills, and cuttings of sheets and plates, rejected, misruled and old fitted shafting's in pieces, old girders and plate pieces, scrap from ships etc. They were to be of not less than 3/8" in thickness, 3.5 lbs. In weight and of minimum length of 4 ft. These articles on import used to be assessed to Customs Duty under P.
C. T. Heading No, 73.03 viz. "Waste and scrap metal of iron or steel", at 25 % ad valorem. It appears that the Central Board of Revenue gave a ruling on 21-3-1969, that re-roll able iron and steel scrap should not be treated as falling under 1'. C. T. Heading 73.03 because the articles mentioned in the Notification above referred to, were not `"Waste and scrap metal of iron or steel" as defined in Note 6 to Section XV, of the First Schedule to the Tariff Act, 1934. This Note 6 defines "Waste and scrap" as meaning waste and scrap metal fit only for the recovery of metal or for use in the manufacture of chemicals, whereas the articles mentioned in the notification above referred to, are imparted to be used for their conversion into rolled products, such as steel billets, by hot-rolling or forging, without being re-melted or forged for the recovery of the metal as a whole.
3. The petitioners in each of these cases obtained import licenses under the Export Bonus Scheme for the import of "Iron and steel scrap for re-rolling purposes". They imported consignments of the said articles from United Kingdom sources. After the consignments arrived at Karachi Port, their clearing agents filed Bills of Entry declaring the articles as falling under P. C. T. Heading No, 73.03 and as liable to Customs Duty at 25% ad valorem. The imported articles were inspected by the Appraising Officer of Customs concerned in each case and it was found that they consisted of one or more of the articles included in the Notification above referred to, such as dismantled plates, pulleys, gears, roll able bars, squares, hexagons, angles, joints, channels, etc. In view of the rulings by the Central Board of Revenue, dated 21.3-1969, above-mentioned, these articles were not assessed under P. C. T. Heading No, 73.03, as "Waste and scrap metal of iron or steel" but under other P. C. T. Heading at the higher rate of duly mentioned against them respectively. Considering themselves aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have filed the present petitions to challenge the classification of the articles under P. C. T. Headings other than P. C. T. Heading No, 73.03 leading to the demand for the excess amount of duty.
4. The submission of Mr. S. M. Sadiq and Mr. Khalid Harmed, learned counsel for some of the petitioners, is that the iron and steel articles imported by the petitioners were for re-rolling and recovery of metal by means of forging, that is, by not rolling or hammering and therefore they fell within the definition of the expression "Waste and Scrap" in Note 6 to Section XV of the First Schedule of the Pakistan Tariff Act, 1934 (above-quoted) and should correctly have been classified under P. C. T. Heading No, 73.03. They submitted that the ruling of the Central Board of Revenue admits that only those articles which are fit for the recovery of metal by "forging" or re-melting will be classifiable under heading 13.03. But this submission, in our opinion, has no force. The Central Board of Revenue was careful to explain the meaning of the word "forging" used in paragraph 3 of the letter as, "The word forging in this context means the process to recover the iron and steel metal in bulk forms without fusion by hammering or hot rolling packets of the waste and scrap metal", thereby meaning recovery in its bulk form or liquid form. The nature of the iron and steel articles in fact imported by the petitioners (which conform to the size and thickness mentioned in the notification enumerated above and which were importable only on the Bonus Scheme) were for re-rolling purposes as stated in the Bills of Entry themselves. It is clear that they were not for remitting for recovery of the metal but could be utilised for other purposes by re-rolling and suitably modifying them. We are of the opinion that they were rightly classified under P. C. T.
Headings other than No, 73.03.
5. The same question came up for consideration before us sitting as Division Bench in C. P. N.
392/70 and others which were decided on 19-10-1976. Therein we have observed: "The main question is whether the goads imported in the shape of sheets, plates, joists, channels, angles, etc. Had to be re-melted first in order to recover the metal before they could be utilized for any other purpose or whether they could be re-roll able at once after cutting them into suitable length for obtaining goods of standard specifications without first re-melting them and recovering the metal. In the factual condition of the goods as imported by the petitioner, the respondent No, 1 rightly held, in our opinion, that they were already fit for re-rolling and not for re-melting in order to recover the metal As rightly submitted by Mrs, Rashida Patel, the test for classifying the scrap actually imported by the petitioner as re-melt able scrap or re-roll able scrap, would depend on what were the goods really imported by the petitioner. It is not disputed that on inspection, the goods were found to be cutting of sheets, plates, joists, channels, angles etc., which were fit for being re-rolled after cutting them to the required sizes and specifications without having to re- melt them first in order to recover the noel In this connection, she referred to the Explanatory Note in the Brussels' Nomenclature, Second Edition, 1966, to Section XV under Head 73.03 wherein iron and steel scrap has been defined to mean scrap metal fit only for the recovery of metal or for use in the manufacturing of chemicals. Re-melting is the normal method of recovering the metal and excludes articles which can be re-fashioned into other goods without first recovering as metal by re-melting or which with or without renovation can be adopted for other uses."
' We have held that if the nature of the goods actually imported by the petitioners were such that they are already fit for re-rolling after suitable cutting or modifying them to required specifications without first re-melting and recovering the metal, they could not be considered as scrap.
6. In the result, we hold that the classification of the articles imported by the petitioners under respective P. C. T. Headings other than No, 73.03 was valid and lawful.
7. Mr. Shah Jamil Alam, Deputy Attorney-General on behalf of the respondent, states that if any of the petitioners has not been given the concessionary rate of duty for the articles imported from the United Kingdom sources, the Department will consider each request on merits.
8. In the result, the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.