9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2187X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imported 16 containers weighing 324.975 MT of Heavy Metal Scrap. On preliminary examination, some quantity of scrap was found to be Mixed Aluminum Auto Casting Scrap , containing 30-40% of other metals alongwith castings. On weighment, Mixed Aluminum Auto Casting Scrap was found to be 30.880 MTs. 2.2 Further, considering the NIDB data and quantity of Mixed Aluminum Casting Scrap Tense of 30.880 MT, the assessable value was taken at R.69.22 per Kg and thus total customs duty of entire imported cargo was arrived at Rs. 9,43,408/- as against the self-assessed total Customs duty of Rs. 6,87,400/- in the Bill of Entry filed by the appellant and therefore, the differential duty of Rs. 2,56,008/- had arisen. Thereafter, Mixed Aluminum Auto Castin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und as declared in the bill of entry and not proved to be used for concealment of the Mixed Aluminum Auto Casting Scrap Tense , hence the same is not liable for confiscation under Section 119 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Appellant is not liable for penalty under Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962. I, therefore, set aside the order of confiscation/ redemption fine in respect of Heavy Metal Scrap totally weighing 294.095 MT. I also set aside the order of penalty imposed under Section 117 of Customs Act, 1962. 16. Regarding the quantity of 30.880 MT of as Mixed Aluminum Auto Casting Scrap Tense , I observe that as discussed above, the same was found undeclared and also having more value than the declared value by the Appellant in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ap was used to conceal the Mixed Aluminum Auto Casting Scrap and should be confiscated. 7. Heard both the sides. On perusal of the facts of the case and after carefully examining the submissions of both the sides, it is seen that the contentions of the Appellant are not acceptable. It is found that in this matter, the issues to be decided by the Adjudicating authority were manifold. In addition to the differential duty leviable, the issue of confiscation of the goods which were seized, recovery of interest, and levy of penalty were also to be decided. Hence, there was no impropriety in issuance of Show Cause Notice. Further, the contention of Revenue is also haseless. The issue of confiscation of goods was examined by the Commissioner (App ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
