9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (12) TMI 606X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h Rs. 26,300, serviceable pipe fittings valued at Rs. 9300, serviceable plates worth Rs. 15,500, serviceable rings valued at Rs. 9800 and penal instrument back valued at Rs. 18,300. Since the goods imported did not satisfy the specification of the goods mentioned in the documents, proceedings were initiated for its confiscation in terms of Section 111(m) and (d) of the Act read with Section 11(i) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The importer, namely, appellant herein waived personal hearing and show cause notice. Consequently, the adjudicating authority passed Order-in-Original dated 25-7-1994. The said order reads as under : "Since the party does not want personal hearing as well as show cause notice, therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs are not using the scrap directly. Since they get valves for pneumatic tubes manufactured from some one else. Therefore, I find that a possibility of misuse in respect of serviceable articles found, cannot be ruled out. The importers, by getting articles such as plates, cartridges both live and empty and describing those articles as "Brass Scrap-Honey" have misdeclared the goods deliberately. They have therefore rendered themselves liable to action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. In view of the foregoing, I pass the order as under : ORDER I confiscate the live cartridges and empty cartridges collectively valued at Rs. 7,000 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since the scrap is found to be serviceable and plat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bsp; The Adjudicating Authority, in his findings, has observed that serviceable goods like plates, cartridges etc. have been deliberately mis-declared as "BRASS SCRAP-HONEY". Despite that he has not ordered confiscation of the same under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. He has ordered confiscation only under Section 111(d) of the Act. When the Adjudicating Authority was convinced that there was a deliberate misdeclaration, he ought to have passed an order confiscating the goods under Section 111(m) of the Act also. (iii) Since it was a case of deliberate misdeclaration, and the importers attempted to clear these serviceable goods without payment of duty, he ought to have imposed higher penalty. F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er passed by the adjudicating authority, the Commissioner could not have gone in appeal to the appellate authority, to examine whether any duty is leviable on the goods which were imported by the appellant herein. It is a fact that import was effected under DEEC scheme. The adjudicating authority had allowed clearance of the goods on redemption fine of Rs. 20,000. Adjudicating authority did not go into the question of levy of duty. So, the argument advanced before me is that the Commissioner could not have enlarged the scope before Commissioner (Appeals) by taking up ground relating to levy of duty. This matter has not been dealt with by the Appellate Commissioner in the order impugned. 4. In the circumstances detailed above, accordin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
