2006 (12) TMI 575 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Classification of imported goods.
2. Rejection of declared value and enhancement of value.
3. Demand for differential duty.
4. Confiscation of goods.
5. Imposition of penalties.
6. Validity of Show Cause Notice (SCN) issued by DRI.

Summary:

1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The Tribunal examined the classification of 100 MTs of Tin Sheets/Coils imported earlier and 48.851 MTs covered by Bill of Entry No. 404351 dated 20/6/2002. The Commissioner concluded that these goods were Tin Sheets/Coils of width above 600 mm, classifiable under CTH 7210.90, based on the confessional statements of the importer and the test reports from the National Metallurgical Laboratory (NML).

2. Rejection of Declared Value and Enhancement of Value:
The declared value of the goods was rejected due to mis-declaration of description and value. The Commissioner enhanced the value of the goods to US$ 465 per metric ton for Belgium origin and US$ 475 per metric ton for German origin under Rule 6 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The Tribunal noted that the enhancement was done without furnishing copies of Bills of Entry relied upon, which violated principles of natural justice.

3. Demand for Differential Duty:
The Commissioner demanded differential duty of Rs. 7,43,752/- on 100 tons of tin sheets already cleared and Rs. 7,79,287/- on 48.851 MTs of tin sheets pending assessment. The amounts deposited by the importer were appropriated towards the duty liability. The Tribunal upheld the demand for differential duty but emphasized the need for adherence to principles of natural justice.

4. Confiscation of Goods:
The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of 68.4 MTs of tin coils/sheets seized from the factory, 31.6 MTs of tin coils/sheets already sold, 67.13 MTs of TFSSD used to conceal the tin sheets, and 48.851 MTs of tin sheets covered by Bill of Entry No. 404351 dated 20/06/02 under Section 111(d), (l) & (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation but noted that goods not in the custody of customs cannot be confiscated.

5. Imposition of Penalties:
Penalties were imposed on M/s. Baburam Premchand under Section 114A for past clearances and under Section 112(a) for the consignment covered by Bill of Entry No. 404351 dated 20/06/02. The Tribunal noted that penalties under both sections could be imposed for different transactions but emphasized the need for proper adjudication.

6. Validity of Show Cause Notice (SCN) Issued by DRI:
The appellants challenged the validity of the SCN issued by DRI, arguing that it was not valid. However, during the hearing, the challenge was withdrawn. The Tribunal did not find merit in this argument and proceeded with the adjudication based on the available evidence.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication, ensuring adherence to principles of natural justice and providing the importer with an opportunity to contest the enhancement of value by furnishing copies of the Bills of Entry relied upon. The Tribunal emphasized the need for proper adjudication of duty, penalty, fine, and interest based on the determined assessable value.