2017 (11) TMI 1117 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of imported goods - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - on examination of the goods the Chartered Engineer gave a categorically report that these are old and used pipes which were rusted internally as well as externally. If pipes are rusted internally and externally and have been removed from some project then it is only a waste nothing else. His opinion that 80% of the goods can be re-used but the same is without any market survey or supporting documents. In that circumstances - the charge of mis-declaration on the appellant is disproved therefore the goods are held not liable for confiscation - redemption fine and penalty also not sustainable - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
1. Contesting redemption fine and penalty on imported goods.

Analysis:
The appellant contested only the redemption fine and penalty imposed on them in relation to the import of two consignments of Re-rollable scrap. The goods were examined by a Chartered Engineer who determined that 80% of the material could be re-used, although the goods were old, used, and rusted. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine and penalty, leading the appellant to appeal. The appellant argued that the goods were old and used pipes, rusted internally and externally, and that they were sold to a furnisher for scrap use. The appellant maintained that there was no evidence of mis-declaration, acknowledging only the value enhancement. The Ld. AR supported the impugned order.

The Tribunal considered the submissions and the Chartered Engineer's report, which described the goods as old and used pipes, rusted internally and externally. The Engineer suggested that 80% of the goods could be re-used, but without market survey or supporting documents. The Tribunal found the Engineer's opinion on reusability unsupported and held that the charge of mis-declaration was disproved, thus the goods were not liable for confiscation. Consequently, the redemption fine and penalty were deemed not imposable. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's concession on valuation, justifying the duty demand but ruling out the imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal, emphasizing that no redemption fine and penalty would be imposed on the appellant.