2012 (2) TMI 267 - AT - Customs

Goods detained on alleged mis-declaration in the description of the goods - Revenue contends goods imported was machine declared as heavy melting scrap appellate authority held that detained goods can be released upon mutilation rendering it as scrap and clearance upon payment of duty as scrap - Held that -There is no evidence to controvert averment of appellant about life and condition of goods. Neither revenue had any material to prove that the goods imported was not 20 50 years nor proved that the same is usable for more than the period certified by Chartered Engineers without major repair and renovation and also looking to lapse of 18 months from the import. Accordingly there is no scope to reverse the first appeal order Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Mis-declaration of goods, suitability of imported goods as machinery, release of goods upon mutilation, legal infirmity in lower appellate authority's decision.

Mis-declaration of goods: The case involved a mis-declaration of goods where a machine was imported but declared as heavy melting scrap. The Department argued that the adjudication should be sustained and the first appellate order reversed due to this mis-declaration.

Suitability of imported goods as machinery: The respondent argued that the imported goods were dismantled and incapable of being used as machinery, being 20 to 50 years old. They contended that the goods were heavy melting scrap and submitted to the Customs Authority for permission to mutilate the goods at the cost of the appellant. The Chartered Engineers certified the residual life of the goods to be 8 years, considering maintenance and repair. The lower Appellate Authority found no legal infirmity in the observations and conclusions, dismissing the Revenue's appeal.

Release of goods upon mutilation: The appellate order allowed the release of the goods upon mutilation at the cost of the appellant to render them as scrap for assessment and clearance upon payment of duty. The court found no evidence to support the Department's claim that the goods were usable for more than the certified period without major repair and renovation, especially considering the lapse of 18 months from the import.

Legal infirmity in lower appellate authority's decision: The court examined the description of goods and the examination conducted by Chartered Engineers, finding no evidence contradicting the appellant's claims about the life and condition of the goods. The lower Appellate Authority's decision to release the goods upon mutilation was upheld, as there was no proof that the goods were not as old as claimed or usable beyond the certified period. The court concluded that there was no legal infirmity in the lower Appellate Authority's decision, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.