9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Mis-declaration of imported goods as Brass Scrap 'Honey Grade'. 2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 3. Assessment of duty based on tariff value fixed by the Government of India. 4. Interpretation of the grade of Brass scrap in the context of duty payment and export obligation. Analysis: 1. The case involved the mis-declaration of imported goods by the appellants as Brass Scrap 'Honey Grade'. The officers contended that the goods were not Mixed Metal scrap of Brass but specifically Brass Scrap 'Honey Grade', leading to initiation of proceedings for confiscation and penalty imposition. 2. The Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, passed an order confiscating the goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine of Rs. 15 lakhs. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. This decision was challenged in the present appeal. 3. The assessment of duty was based on the tariff value fixed by the Government of India as per Notification No. 52/2002, which set the value of Brass at U.S. $ 1028 per metric ton. The appellants declared this value in their Bill of Entry for duty payment, which was accepted by the Commissioner. 4. The appellants argued that the presence of zinc and iron traces in the scrap indicated that it could not be classified as 'Honey Grade' Brass. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions where it was held that mis-declaration is not intended when goods are assessed at tariff value. Citing specific cases, the Tribunal concluded that confiscation and penalty were not justified in this scenario. In light of the above analysis and precedents, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling that the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty on the appellants were neither justified nor warranted.
|
