9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1801X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... res". Appeal No. C/59922/2013-CU[DB] 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s S.K. Enterprises, imported 'Old and Used Tyres' of different sizes and filed Bill of Entry No.9258109 dated 08.02.2013. It appeared to Revenue on examination of the goods by independent Chartered Engineer that the tyres were in re-usable condition and also that declared CIF value of Rs. 36,98,449.62/- needed upward revision. Therefore, through Order-in-Original dated 08.03.2013 Original Authority enhanced the CIF value of said goods to Rs. 46,16,405/- under Rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of value of imported goods), Rules, 2007 issued under Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. Further it was held that the old and used tyres could be imported only ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in-Appeal. 5. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of record, we find that under similar circumstances this Tribunal had imposed redemption fine of 15% and penalty 10% of the re-determined value and said order was not interfered with by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Customs Appeal No.278 of 2015. Following the precedent ruling in the present case also we modify the impugned order by reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 9 lakhs to 15% of re-determined value i.e., Rs. 46,16,405/- and reduce penalty from Rs. 7 lakhs to Rs. 4,61,641/-. The impugned order stands modify to the above effect. In above terms the appeal is allowed without interference in re-determined assessable value and rate of duty. Appeal Nos. C/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidered the submissions from both the sides and on perusal of ruling by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of M/s Jibran Overseas in Customs Appeal No.278 of 2015, it was clear that the Hon'ble High Court through its order dated 20.12.2016 very clearly held that the Tribunal's finding that the imported old and used tyres which are capable of being used was not hit by the mischief of hazardous waste and would not be defined as hazardous waste and, therefore, their importer did not require the permission of MOEF. Relying on the said ruling we hold that the ground raised by Revenue is not sustainable. Therefore, we dismiss both the appeals filed by Revenue.
(Pronounced in Court on 21/06/2018) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
