9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 438X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nc skimming and zinc ash for using it as a raw material in their factory. During the period August 2002 to November 2002 they imported such goods and declared the value of such goods to be US$ 380 per MT, which value as generally accepted for such goods at JNPT Port, Nhava Sheva, Mumbai. The Director General of Revenue Intelligence got information that the actual value paid by the appellants for such goods were much higher than the value declared at the time of import for paying customs duty and the appellants were remitting the balance consideration through separate invoice/debit notes. Revenue took the help of Consul (Trade) Consulate General, New York and collected invoices regarding extra remittances in respect of certain consignments. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per MT. In this case there is also an issue of mis-declaration of quantity to be 19.23 MT whereas the weight as per insurance policy was 20 MTs. The difference in quantity was also accepted by Shri Baljinder Singh. 6. Appeal No. C/225/2008 is filed by Shri Baljinder Singh proprietor of M/s. Dee Kay Exports on whom penalty has been imposed by the adjudicating authority in the case of these imports. 7. In these cases the assessments were made on provisional basis at the time of import for ascertaining that minimum zinc content as per the import policy was present in the goods. After receiving satisfactory test reports the bonds were cancelled and the assessments became final. 8. In the case of imports from USA, the appellan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the CVD amount erroneously considered to be payable. 10. They also point out that C.B.E. & C. has issued clarification vide Circular No. 383/150/2004-JC, dated 19-6-2007 in the light of the said judgments confirming that no review of question of duty on zinc skimming is contemplated. It is their plea that they have paid countervailing duty at the time of import under mistaken impression of law and therefore they cannot be asked to pay any differential duty on the said consignments. They submit that have already paid excess duty, even if the increased prices are taken into consideration. 11. The appellants also contest that since the assessments were finalized the Revenue could not have issued a Show Cause Notice later, allegin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cheapest source and it is very obvious that the value of goods imported during the same period should be the same. He also submits that since during the relevant period the appellants have paid countervailing duty and have not contested levy of such duty. They cannot be contesting such levy now. He also points out that the circular issued by the board makes it clear that the past cases are not to be reviewed. That being the case, the claim of the appellant for adjusting countervailing duty to mis-declaration of value is not maintainable. 15. At any rate ld. AR submits that the importer gave a false declaration of value at the time of import and there was the intention to evade payment of customs duty and such goods are clearly liable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... can vary and therefore it is difficult to agree to any addition in value, based on the fact that the appellants have suppressed value of goods imported from another country. Further we note that the entire matter arose from the fact that the customs authorities at Mumbai adopted a practice of assessing such goods at a standard value of US $ 380 per MT irrespective of the transaction value and most of the other importers got away with such declaration. That being the case there is no reason to adopt a different standard for the appellant in cases where clear evidence of remittance of extra consideration is not adduced by Revenue. Therefore we are of the view that for imports from countries other than USA the benefit of doubt should go to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccount of CVD from USA are not maintainable. Differential SAD will have to be calculated on the basis that CVD is not leviable. So the question of differential duty on this count is not likely to arise. We note that the appellants have already paid such differential duty. 22. We note that the adjudicating authority had confiscated goods which were not available for confiscation. Even the bond executed for another reason namely to wait for test reports, had been discharged prior to adjudication. So we hold that the confiscation of goods and consequent redemption fine to be not maintainable. 23. We note that the impugned orders do not give the specific acts of Shri Baljinder Singh for which penalty is imposed. No action on his par ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
