TMI Blog2001 (10) TMI 185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of what it considered to be prime material of copper in the form of strip, tubes and rods. The Custom House therefore constituted a panel for detailed examination of these consignments. The panel conducted its examination and also obtained technical opinion from a senior process engineer of Hindustan Copper Ltd. As a result, it concluded that each of the consignments contained prime material in the form of strip, tubes and bar, to the extent of 5.8 tons in the case of bill of entry No. 1041, dated 2-11-1993 and 7.51 tons in the case of bill of entry No. 10656, dated 30-8-1993. The certificate of the expert indicated that the strips could be used as such. Tubes could be used after cleaning. Square bar could be used for subsequent operatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s evident that there has been misdeclaration. The goods ought to have been confiscated and penalty imposed on the importer. It is also contended that there was very much dispute brought to the notice of the Collector regarding the value and liability of confiscation. 4.As we have noted, the importer had waived issue of written notice. The proportion that was placed before the Collector for adjudication is contained in a note dated 17-12-1993 of the appraising officer of the Central Intelligence Unit of the Custom House, countersigned by the Assistant Collector and Additional Collector. This note clearly proposed "adjudication on above grounds of misdeclaration, classification and valuation", proposed penalty on the importer, after giving ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... whether any remittance has been made or not. If remittance were the criteria, it would follow that in case the remittance were not made, as for example, in the case of free supply, duty would not be payable at all. Such a proposition has to be dismissed out of hand. 7.It is next contended that since the Collector has held that there is no suppression, misdeclaration of value of evidence of mala fide or deliberate mis-statement, there is no justification for confiscation or imposition of penalty. 8.The reliance upon the Supreme Court's judgment in Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CCE - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 is misplaced. The ratio of that judgment that the transaction value has to be accepted, except in cases where any of the exceptions containe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f prime material in the consignments having been confirmed, they become liable for confiscation under clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act. The contention that there were no mala fides is of no relevance in coming to this conclusion. Whether mala fide is presence or not, the goods became liable to confiscation. There is no material otherwise would no doubt in determining the quantum of fine or offer for redeeming the goods. This again would be more appropriate to the Commissioner. 10.We now come to the question of penalty. In coming to his conclusion that penalty is not imposable, the Collector has said that there is no suppression of value or any evidence of mala fide or deliberate mis-statement or misdeclaration. We have dealt with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
