9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 964X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order, it is recorded by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that the basic issue of the appeals before him was whether confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and penalty by the Lower Authority in absence of valid PSI certificate is maintainable or otherwise. 2. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the imported goods were declared as Tin Waste and Scrap (Light Melting Scrap) in accordance to the import documents provided by the foreign supplier. Only during 100% examination after import, a Chartered Engineer was appointed who opined on visual examination that the goods are Tin Plated Steel Scrap as steel predominates by weight. The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant refers to the Chartered Eng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion has rightly been passed. 5. Heard both sides through video conferencing and perused the appeal records. 6. I have gone through the records and documents of the present case and considered the rival submission made before me. It is apparent that the goods declared as Tin Waste and Scrap (Light Melting Scrap) were on verification by the qualified Chartered Engineer certified as Tin Plated Steel Scrap since steel predominates by weight. The appellant had not asked for any re-test or alike at the relevant point of time. On the contrary under letter dated 24.01.2013 (page no. 23 of the appeal memorandum) the appellant/ importer had waived his right of show cause notice and/or hearing at the stage of adjudication and hence, the contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e time of importation of the goods, admittedly, Pre Shipment Inspection Certificates were not available and the goods were wrongly described as scrap of tin instead of scrap of steel. The appellant could not even produce such certificates prior to adjudication and as such, in my considered opinion, the order of confiscation of the imported goods are proper and correct under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and thus upheld. 9. With respect to the imposition of penalty upon the present appellant being importer under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, I find that the Adjudication Order dated 25.02.2013, issued on 27.02.2013, does not provide any specific finding on the same. At paragraph 8 of the said Adjudication Order, the penalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orities below with respect to subsequent correspondence from the Overseas Supplier as on record. From such correspondence it is evident that the present appellant/importer had hardly any role to play in the misdeclaration. There is nothing on record to suggest any prior knowledge or reason to believe about the confiscable nature of the imported goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. Moreover, the goods imported in January, 2013 by the appellant have already lost its market value of Rs. 21,73,643.25(as declared) and the appellant /importer has already suffered substantial loss and injury for no fault on his part. The law requires existence of mens rea and maintenance of balance of convenience prior to imposition of penalty upon an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
