TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was recognized, the branch was not so recognized. Though there were violations of the Foreign Trade Policy read with Handbook of Procedures, the goods are liable to confiscation in view of section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and levy of penalty is also justified but as the redemption fine and the penalty imposed are on the higher side the fine in lieu of confiscation imposed are reduced from ₹ 5,09,000/- to ₹ 50,000/- and penalty penalty from ₹ 1,30,000/- to ₹ 30,000/-. - Decided in favour of appellant - C/357/2005 - Final Order No. 41841 / 2015 - Dated:- 26-10-2015 - SHRI R. PERIASAMI, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND SHRI P. K. CHOUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER For the Petitioner : Ms. Sridevi, Adv. For the Responde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revision in price was not objected to by the appellant as could be seen in paras 8 and 9 of the impugned order. The adjudicating authority had accordingly, in his Order in Original, re-determined the price at U.S $ 290/- per M.T (C F) for the 195.780 MTs of Re-Rollable Steel Scrap. The impugned goods were confiscated with an option for redemption on payment of ₹ 5,09,000/- under section 125(1) of the Customs Act 1962. A penalty of ₹ 1,30,000/- was also imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant preferred their present appeal and the matter was represented by Ms. Sridevi, Learned Advocate, who contends that they had agreed for enhancement of the value and also adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enhancement of such value for assessment purposes. However, they have pleaded for reduction in the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and the consequent penalties imposed. In the case on hand, we find that the importer have attempted to comply with the statutory conditions prescribed in the handbook of procedures under the Foreign Trade Policy regarding import of scraps, though the certificate produced, as a pre-shipment inspection certificate, was not accepted by the department. The pre-inspection certificate issued by M/s Bureau Veritas, Paris, as the place of loading viz Conarkry was not accepted by the Adjudicating Authority, for the sole reason that the name had not been listed in the appendix 28. It appears that while the Head Of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
