TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 172X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the chemical examiners for the test reports. The allegation in the show cause notice as confirmed in the impugned order is that the appellant has misdeclared the nature of goods. The appellant imported base oil and declared it as machinery oil and also claimed wrong classification in this bill of entry.Since the description of the goods was held to be not correct, the declared assessable value was rejected under Rule 12 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Goods, 2007 and redetermined under Rule 5. Accordingly, the assessment of the bills of entry which were provisionally assessed was ordered to be finalized and the differential duty was ordered to be recovered. It is unfair to allege that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the Department ORDER Appeal No. 76904 of 2019 is filed by M/s JJR Associates, the importer, assailing order-in-original [ Impugned order ] dated 08.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Customs House, Kolkata. Appeal No. 75072 of 2020 is filed by the Proprietor of the importer firm Shri Rahul Jhajharia. In both appeals, the prayer is to set aside the impugned order. 2. We have heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant had filed 41 bills of entry describing the imported products as machinery oil under CTH 27101950 and machinery lubricating oil under CTH 27101980. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [ DRI ] received intelligence that importers were mis- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der to change the classification of the goods from CTH 27101950/27101980 to 27101960 and consequently order to pay the differential duty amounting to ₹ 2,32,95,676/- (Rupees Two Crore Thirty Two Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Six only) arrived at under Section 18 (2) read with Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the re-determined assessable value and order for finalization of all the (41 Nos.) provisionally assessed Bills of Entry accordingly. IV. I give an option to the importer to redeem the goods for home consumption on payment of Redemption Fine of ₹ 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. V. I impose a penalty of ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... il sample and it did not contain additives and it may be considered as base oil. We find that this report has as reproduced in para 9 of the impugned order does not categorically say that it is base oil and does not or machin ery oil. (c) Report of CRCL, New Delhi showed that the samples tested by them may be base oil of various grades. We find that this report also does not say definitely that the samples were of base oil and not machinery oil as declared ; (d) Reports from M/s Ba r lmer Lawrie Co. to whom the appellant had supplied base oil in response to their tenders and the test reports confirmed that the goods supplied by the importer made their specifications. 5. In their appeals, the appellants contended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 AA of the Customs Act. 7. It is unfair to allege that the appellants have mis-declared the goods without any categorical finding of an expert that the imported goods were NOT machinery oil and then allowing cross examination of such expert(s) by the appellant to prove its case and contest the expert opinion. In this case, while the test reports that have been relied upon as recorded in the impugned order only suggested that the goods may be base oil and NOT that they are base oil . Further, the reports also do not say that the goods are not machinery oil as described by the importer. Thus, there is an ambiguity in the test reports. On the other hand, the appellant is said to have sold the goods to M/s Barlmer Lawrie Co. as base ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
