9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 703X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent filed bill of Entry bearing No.6914966 dated 24.05.2012 for 204.030 MT of Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS) classifying the imported goods under Chapter Heading No.72044900. The duty was assessed at Rs. 8,55,923/- on 24.05.2012 and consignment was ordered for second check. The goods were physically examined by the Shed officers on 12.07.2012 in the presence of the CHA's representative. The containers were found stuffed with the declared goods in the front side of all the eight containers while in the rest of all the eight containers, the goods were not matching with the description as was indicated on the import documents and found stuffed with slag/ black ore type material. Hench, representative samples were drawn in the presenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... invoice of overseas supplier worked out to be Rs. 50,78,336.70/- whereas, the value of the slag was nominal and the value could be around USD 10 per MT only, which was less than the freight involved. The importer requested for reduction in the value of the imported goods on the basis of data as they had received the goods having nominal value. Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Noida vide Order-in-Original No.06/Commr/Cus/2012 dated 14.08.2012 ordered for confiscation of the goods imported vide the said Bill of Entry dated 24.25.2012 under Section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and gave an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 10,00,000/- for re-export of the imported slag. The confiscated go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the learned Commissioner (Appeals), Revenue is before this Tribunal. 3. The grounds of Revenue appeal are as follows:- "Order-in-Appeal No.NOI/EXCUS/000/APP/285/2014-15 dated 23.12.2014 does not appear to be proper and legal, on the law point. Refund claim of the party, in the instant case is subject to relinquishment of the title of imported goods. M/s Prateek Traders, Ghaziabad would be entitled to to refund of duty paid by them, if the same had been done by them as per relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. This point had however, not been discussed in the impugned Order-In-Appeal. Section 23 (2) of the Customs Act, 1962 dealing with the relinquishment of the imported goods provides as under:- "The owner of any imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 submitted by the respondent relinquishing the title of the goods, was claimed by the respondent. 5. Heard the learned Advocate Mrs. Stuti Saggi, Amicus-curie who has supported the impugned Order-in-Appeal. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of the said letter dated 02.09.2012 filed by respondent before the Customs Authorities, I am satisfied that as provided under Sub-section 2 of Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962, the law did not allow respondent to relinquish his title to said goods since the said goods were found to be mis-declared. Further, the goods brought into were prohibited, since they did not have environmental clearance for importation of the same and, therefore, the goods had violated the provisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
