TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the description tallied with the goods than he cannot be held to have contravened the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. In view of their acceptance that on their behest, IGM was manipulated, I agree with the finding of learned Member (j) - both HMS and re-rollable steel scrap are having the same classification as sub heading 7204 49 00. However, the fact that 87% of the goods did not tally with the description of goods in Bill of Entry. Therefore, I agree with the opinion of Member (J). In view of the majority order, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. - Appeal No. C/60041-60043/2013-DB - Final Order No. 62289-62291 / 2018 - Dated:- 2-5-2018 - Hon ble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts has been made at their behest; that they have made the mistake to save customs duty; that they accept their mistake and promised that this will not be repeated in future; that they requested for adjudication of the case without issuance of the show cause notice and personal hearing. 4. As a result, the goods in question were seized with an option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and penalties. 5. On appeal against the said decisions, Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the request for amendment of the IGM was made by the appellant only after discovery of the fact that the goods imported are different than the goods declared in the IGM, bill of lading etc. It is only after detection of the case of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lties are required to be reduced. Accordingly, we reduce the redemption fine and penalties to 10% of the fine and penalties imposed by the original adjudicating authority in each case. All the appeals are disposed off in the above manner. Per Devender Singh: 8. Having gone through the order of Ld. Member (Judicial), I pass a separate order. 9. The facts in appeals Nos. C/60041/2013-CU(DB) and C/60042/2013 are similar while facts in appeal no. C/60043/2013 aredifferent. Hence, my order is in two parts: (I) In appeals Nos. C/60041/2013-CU(DB) and C/60042/2013: i. In both the above appeals, the adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority have given concurrent findings that the importer M/s S.M Steel T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ewed in that context. iii. I also find that there were excess goods found in both the above appeals over and above the quantity declared in the respective bills of entry. In the Appeal No. C/60041/2013, 106.95 MT was found in excess in the consignment of 14426.5 MT and in Appeal No. C/60042/2013, 9.650 MT was found in excess in the consignment in the declared consignment of 93.440 MT. iv. In the above circumstances, particularly where there was clear admission of abetment on the part of the importer with a view of evade customs duty by way of mis-declaration as heavy melting scrap (the duty rate of re-rollable scrap was 6% higher than heavy melting scrap at that time) and mis-declaration of quantity, I hold that the amount of redempti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onable and correctly upheld by Commissioner (Appeal). Accordingly, I hold that the order of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) warrants no interference. 10. In view of the above, the appeals filed by the appellants have no merit and are rejected. Devender Singh Member (Technical) 11. In view of difference of opinion emerging between the Hon ble Member on the issue of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant, the registrar is directed to place the matter before the Hon ble President for nominating the third Member for resolving the following: Difference of opinion Whether in view of high see purchase and declaration in bills of entry, in all these appeals redemption fine and penalty should be reduced to 10% of the fine and penalti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vade payment of customs duty. 15. Further learned Counsel for the appellant in respect of Appeal No.C/60043/2013 has submitted that tariff heading of HMS and re-rollable scrap is the same which is under sub heading 7204 49 00. Therefore, it does not amount to mis-declaration. 16. Having considered rival contentions and on perusal of record , I find that the responsibility of filing of IGM is not with the importer. Therefore, if importer declared the correct description in the bill of entry and the description tallied with the goods than he cannot be held to have contravened the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. However, in view of their acceptance that on their behest, IGM was manipulated, I agree with the finding of learned Member (j ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
