2015 (10) TMI 2187 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of values Confiscation of Goods and imposition of duties, fines and penalties Appellant imported Heavy Metal Scrap and some quantity of scrap was found to be Mixed Aluminium Auto Casting Scrap Considering NIDB data and quantity of Mixed Aluminium Casting Scrap Tense, assessing value was increased Goods were confiscated and duty and penalty was imposed Held that - issue of confiscation of goods was examined by Commissioner in detail and commissioner had set aside order of confiscation and redemption fine in respect of heavy metal scrap which conformed with declaration filed by Appellant However, upheld confiscation of Mixed Aluminum Auto Casting Scrap as same was found un-declared and was also mis-declared in respect of values Thus, no reasons were found to interfere with well-reasoned decision of Commissioner Imposition of penalty under Section 112 is also justified under circumstances Thus appeal partly allowed Decided partly in favour of Appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals filed by Assessee and Revenue against the same impugned Order-in-Appeal.

Analysis:
The case involved the import of Heavy Metal Scrap by the Appellant, which was found to contain Mixed Aluminum Auto Casting Scrap. The assessable value was disputed, leading to a differential duty of &8377; 2,56,008. Seized goods were provisionally released upon payment of the differential duty and submission of a bank guarantee. The Adjudicating authority confiscated the Mixed Aluminum Auto Casting Scrap and a portion of the Heavy Metal Scrap, imposing fines and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.

The Appellant appealed the decision, resulting in the Commissioner (Appeals) modifying the Order-in-Original. The Commissioner set aside the confiscation and penalties related to the Heavy Metal Scrap but upheld the confiscation and penalties for the Mixed Aluminum Auto Casting Scrap. The Commissioner found the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) to be excessive and reduced it to &8377; 50,000.

The main contentions of the Appellant included the lack of necessity for a Show Cause Notice, the non-liability of goods for confiscation, and the imposition of penalties under Section 112. Revenue argued that the Heavy Metal Scrap was used to conceal the Mixed Aluminum Auto Casting Scrap, justifying confiscation.

The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). It found no impropriety in the Show Cause Notice issuance and agreed with the Commissioner's analysis regarding the confiscation of goods. The Tribunal dismissed both appeals, concluding that the issues raised were adequately addressed in the impugned Order-in-Appeal.

The Appellant's reliance on case laws was deemed irrelevant as the facts differed from the present case. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed both appeals, affirming the confiscation and penalties imposed on the Appellant.

In summary, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation and penalties related to the Mixed Aluminum Auto Casting Scrap, while setting aside the same for the Heavy Metal Scrap. The penalty under Section 112(a) was reduced to &8377; 50,000, and both appeals were dismissed based on the facts and circumstances of the case.