2004 (10) TMI 494 - AT - Central Excise

Confiscation of goods removed from Free Trade Zone unit - Misdeclaration - Free Trade Zone - Valuation - Chemical Examiner s Report - Samples - Penalty

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of goods under Customs Tariff heading.
2. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act and Central Excise Act.
3. Valuation of goods for duty calculation.
4. Imposition of penalties under Central Excise Rules.
5. Adequacy of samples drawn for testing.

Classification of goods under Customs Tariff heading:
The case involved the clearance of goods misdeclared as rubber scrap but found to be plastic scrap upon examination. The lower authorities correctly classified the goods under the Customs Tariff heading for duty calculation. The appellant's argument that the clearance was based on their declaration does not absolve them of misdeclaration. The authorities' assessment under Chapter heading 39 of the Customs Tariff was deemed appropriate.

Confiscation of goods under Customs Act and Central Excise Act:
The goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules. The application of Central Excise Act and Rules to clearances from units in KFTZ was deemed correct. The impugned goods were liable to confiscation for being removed without payment of appropriate duty, justifying confiscation under Section 173Q of the Central Excise Act.

Valuation of goods for duty calculation:
The authorities valued the goods based on the value of similar imported goods. The lack of evidence from the appellants regarding the correct value led to the adoption of this valuation method. While domestic prices could have been considered, the absence of evidence necessitated using available tangible data for valuation. The valuation method was upheld, cautioning that it may not apply in dissimilar circumstances.

Imposition of penalties under Central Excise Rules:
Penalties were imposed on the company and the director under Central Excise Rules. The penalties were deemed justifiable, as the authorities correctly invoked provisions of both the Customs Act and Central Excise Act for penalty imposition.

Adequacy of samples drawn for testing:
The contention regarding the adequacy of samples drawn for testing was dismissed. The homogeneous nature of the goods and the consistent test results supported the adequacy of the samples drawn. The repeated testing and consistent results negated the need for drawing fresh samples, as the samples adequately represented the goods in question.

In conclusion, the appeals were rejected, affirming the lower authorities' decisions on classification, confiscation, valuation, penalty imposition, and adequacy of samples drawn for testing.