9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1207X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2010, confiscated the goods imported under the Bill of Entry dated 28.07.2003, but as the goods were not available, imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Additional Commissioner also assessed the imported goods at Rs. 7,02,625/- and confirmed the differential customs duty with penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 [the Customs Act]. 3. It is against this order that an appeal was filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. The department believed that the imported goods were not eligible for concessional rate of duty applicable to melting scrap and, therefore, 100% physical examination of the goods was conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses. The samples were then subjected to market en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e-assessed. It is, thus, a matter of fact that, all these facts were known to the Appellants since the filing of BE and receipt of impugned order. However, I have not come across any rebuttal to these facts by the Appellants. The impugned order was passed after giving fair opportunity to the Appellants on the Principles of Natural Justice. The relevance of the end use Certificate produced by the Appellants was also discussed at length in the said order. 6.2 Presently, the Appellants now intended to dig out a case by terming the proceedings, Show Cause Notice, the seizure thereof, and the impugned order to be illegal. However, there is nothing on record put forward by them as to how the proceedings, resulting into issuing of the Show Cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the appeal is that the Additional Commissioner had no authority in law to change the classification of the imported goods from heavy melting scrap to ingots and flats. 9. It is not possible to accept this submission. Apart from the fact that the appellant failed to substantiate this ground, the Additional Commissioner does have the power to determine the classification of the imported goods. In the present case, 100% physical examination of the goods was conducted and thereafter reports were also called from the examiner. This finding of the Additional Commissioner has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Apart from making a bald statement that the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to appreciate the contention raised by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
