2004 (4) TMI 381 - AT - Central Excise

Evidence - Expert evidence - Test report - Reliability of - Confiscation of goods - Misdeclaration

Issues Involved:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods.
2. Liability of goods to confiscation under Section 111 and Section 119 of the Customs Act.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
4. Appropriateness of denying mutilation of goods under Section 24 of the Customs Act.
5. Validity of the chemical test report and visual inspection as evidence.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Misdeclaration of Imported Goods:

The appellants, M/s. A.R.S. Metals (P) Ltd., imported 211 MTs of what was declared as "Bushling Steel scrap" (BS scrap) from Singapore. Upon inspection, Central Excise officers found that the consignment included tin-coated discs, tin-coated sheets, zinc-coated sheets, zinc-coated coils, and uncoated coils, totaling 55.315 MTs, which were believed to be serviceable goods rather than scrap. The department alleged that the appellants had misdeclared these goods to evade higher customs duties. However, the appellants consistently maintained that all imported goods were scrap intended for melting in their furnace to manufacture MS ingots.

2. Liability of Goods to Confiscation under Section 111 and Section 119 of the Customs Act:

The adjudicating authority held that the "other goods" (tin/zinc-coated materials and uncoated coils) were liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act due to misdeclaration. The BS scrap was also deemed liable for confiscation under Section 119 as it was allegedly used to conceal the "other goods." The Collector's order confirmed the confiscation of the goods and imposed redemption fines and penalties.

3. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act:

The Collector imposed penalties of Rs. 1,00,000/- on M/s. A.R.S. Metals (P) Ltd. and Rs. 25,000/- on Shri Puneet Bhatia, the company's director, under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The appellants contested this, arguing that there was no mala fide intention or misdeclaration on their part.

4. Appropriateness of Denying Mutilation of Goods under Section 24 of the Customs Act:

The Collector denied the appellants' request for mutilation of the seized 55.315 MTs of materials under Section 24 of the Customs Act, arguing that the goods were usable as such and had been misdeclared. The appellants cited legal precedents to argue that the denial was not in accordance with the law, but the Collector maintained that mutilation was not permissible for contraband goods.

5. Validity of the Chemical Test Report and Visual Inspection as Evidence:

The Collector relied on a chemical test report and his own visual inspection to determine that the goods were serviceable and not scrap. The test report noted that the laboratory was not equipped to determine whether the samples were of iron or steel, undermining its reliability. The Collector's visual inspection was also deemed insufficient to establish the nature of the goods.

Judgment:

The Tribunal found that the department had not substantiated its allegations of misdeclaration. The segregation of goods was conducted in the presence of Central Excise officers, and there was no evidence to prove that the appellants had segregated the goods before the officers' visit. The shipping documents described the goods as scrap, and the appellants had ordered scrap from their supplier.

The Tribunal rejected the Collector's reliance on the chemical test report and visual inspection, noting that these were not reliable evidence to determine the nature of the goods. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the goods were not liable to confiscation under Section 111 or Section 119 of the Customs Act, and the appellants were not liable for penalties under Section 112.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential reliefs, and held that no further amount of duty was recoverable from the appellants.

← Previous Next →