TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 1202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Board has issued a Circular in 2005 holding that the said goods are classifiable under CTH 72 and later Board has changed their view by issuing another Circular in 2006 stating that such goods are classifiable under CTH 73 - the appellant has not acted dishonestly and contumaciously or with the deliberate or distinct object of breaching the law - confiscation of the goods is unjustified - re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 73 require license to import, as per para 2.17 of EXIM Policy, it was proposed that the goods are liable for confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and also for penalty. After due process of law, the original authority held that the goods are classifiable under CTH 73 and thus confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 3,0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cular in favour of the appellant classifying the goods under CTH 72, the confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and penalty is unjustified. It was also brought to notice that Circular No.8/06-Cus. dated 17.1.2006 was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras and vide judgment in Madras Steel Re-rollers Association Vs. Union of India as reported in 2007 (217) ELT 167 (Mad.), th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e aware of the Board Circular dated 17.1.2006, at the time of import, they ought to have declared the correct classification. The confiscation of the goods as well as imposition of penalty is legal and proper. 4. We have heard the submissions made by both sides. 5. As narrated above, the classification of the impugned goods namely 'used rails' was doubtful and the Board has issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
