TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 617X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 323986/5-6-03 M.S. Sheet cuttings 724044900 54.120 6494.40 (@ 120 US $ per MT) 2 324005/ 5-6-03 M.S. Sheet cuttings 72044900 26.290 3154.20 (@120 US $ per MT) 3 326050/ 28-7-03 M.S. Sheet cuttings 724044900 25.550 3066.00 (@120 US $ per MT) 4 324004/ 5-6-03 Non alloy steel melting scrap 724044900 65.360 8029.20 (@ 122.8458 US $ per MT) 3.1 On examination of the said goods by the authorities, it was noticed that the containers contained the following goods. Sl. No. B. E. No. Date Description of the goods declared Actual goods found Qty. declared (MT) Actual Qty. found (MTs) 1 323986/5-6-03 M.S. Sheet cuttings Secondary/Defective CRGO steel sheets 54.120 55.070 2 324005/5-6-03 M.S. Sheet cuttings Secondary/Defective CRGO steel sheets 26.290 27.220 3 326050/28-7-03 M.S. Sheet cuttings Secondary/Defective CRGO steel sheets 25.550 25.595 4 324004 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Customs Act, 1962. However, I give an option to the importer to redeem the same on payment of a find of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees Four Lakhs Only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and on payment of appropriate duty. (iii) I impose a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. (iv) I also impose a penalty of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) on M/s. Tryway International Tuticorin (CHA) under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. (v) The goods should be redeemed within 30 days from the date of issue of this order or within such further period as may be extended by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner concerned. Both the appellants are in appeal against the above said order. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that their grounds of appeal may be gone into. We may read the same. (i) The Commissioner failed to appreciate that he had already pre determined the issues by recording his findings in regard to the subject Bills of Entry in Order-in-Original No. 36/2003 dt. 17-10-2003. The views expressed therein clearly demonstrate that he had made u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to discharge its onus in regard to valuation of the goods in terms of Section 14(1) of the Customs Act and Rules framed thereunder. (xi) The Adjudicating Authority failed to justify the basis for determining the value of the goods at US$ 314 PMT and furnish documentary evidence. This is particularly relevant after the appellant herein had raised objections in regard to the relevancy of the Bill of Entry cited as evidence. (xii) The Commissioner failed to appreciate the objections raised by the appellant herein in regard to the representative character of the samples drawn in as much as the National Metallurgical Laboratory has confined its report only to the sample and not to the entire consignment. 4.1 Further, on behalf of the appellant-CHA, the learned counsel urged the following grounds made in the appeal memo. (i) The order has been passed in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act inasmuch as even a copy of the order has not been served in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Respondent is put to strict proof of his contention that the order was served on the appellant herein. (ii) The appellant herein as an approved Custom House A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. We have considered the submissions made at length by both sides and perused the records. 6.1 The issue to be decided in this case is whether there is mis-declaration of the goods imported by the appellant-importer; whether the contemporaneous value as applied by the Adjudicating Authority is correct or not and whether the consequent penalty will arise or not on both the appellants. 6.2 As regards the misdeclaration of the goods, we find from the table reproduced in paragraph 3 that the quantity declared by the appellant-importer is actually less than the quantity which was found in the containers. It is also seen that the description of the goods as declared was in variance than the actual. We find that the conclusion of the learned Adjudicating Authority that there was misdeclaration is correct and needs to be upheld. 6.3 Further, we find that Shri K. Riyaz Ahmed, Sr. Manager who appeared on behalf of the appellant-importer in his statement dated 25-9-2003 has clearly accepted that the imported goods in the above bills of entries were mis-declared for the purpose of paying lesser amount of customs duty and also accepted that import was of secondary/defective CRGO steel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 167123 dt. 11-7-2003. The said Bill of Entry is for the import of Silicon Electrical Steel Strips/Scraps (originated by dismantling of old and used transformers). On further perusal of the Bills of Entry, we find that the country of origin of goods is stated to be Italy. It is seen from the records that the country of origin in respect of the goods imported and in dispute in this case, is also from European Union. We also find that the contemporaneous import is of 28.03 MT which is approximately near about the quantity of the imports made by the appellants vide the disputed bills of entry. 6.5 In view of the above facts, we are of the considered view that the Adjudicating Authority has correctly applied the CIF value of the contemporaneous import for enhancement of the value of the goods which are sought to be imported by the appellant-importer. We do not find any merit in the appeal filed by the appellant-importer in respect of enhancement of CIF value and reject the same. 6.6 The Adjudicating Authority has ordered for the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. Provisions of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act are clearly applicable in this case, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
