TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 356X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of assessee. - C/908/2012 - - - Dated:- 2-5-2013 - P R Chandrasekharan And Anil Choudhary, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri A K Prabhakar, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri V C Khole, Dy. Commissioner (AR) PER : P R Chandrasekharan The appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. 295/MCH/ADC/Gr.IV/2012 dated 01/06/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone I. 2. The appellant M/s Aneri Steel Pvt. Ltd. (ASPL in short) filed a bill of entry No. 858113 dated 27/08/2008 for the import of 317.20 MTs of Non - alloy Hot-rolled Cut Steel Sheets' valued at Rs.1,42,03,390/- supplied by M/s. Burwill Resources Ltd., Hong Kong @ USD 1020/MT. The importer claimed the benefit of notification No.21/2002-Cus da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 17,40,863/- and also proposing to confiscate the goods under section 111(m) of the Customs Act and to impose penalties on the appellant importer and Shri. Abhay Mehta, the Managing Director, Shri. Arun Makwana. The appellant contested the notice. The adjudicating authority observed that the appellant had submitted manufacturer's Mill Test Certificates for the goods under import as per which the goods were of prime quality. The appellant had also declared a value of USD 1020 per MT for the goods and the contemporaneous imports value of similar goods ranged from USD 1020 to USD 1030 and no prudent person would import seconds/defective by paying a higher price applicable to prime metals. Other than the visual examination report, there was n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... declared a price of USD 1020 per MT which is the contemporaneous import price for the prime material. The department has accepted the said value for the purposes of assessment of duty. Accordingly he prays for allowing the appeal. 4. The ld. Deputy Commissioner (AR) for the Revenue reiterates the findings given by the lower Appellate authority. He submits that the appellant had agreed with the examination report and had paid the differential duty liability. Therefore, it has to be concluded that the appellant had agreed that the goods were seconds/defective. Accordingly he prays for upholding the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5.1 We have perused the import documents such as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
