2008 (5) TMI 203 - AT - Customs

Vessel along with cargo was seized on the ground of mis-declaration and undervaluation of cargo short shipment - appellant claim they have received only 76.385 MTs. of HMS and the remaining quantity was not delivered to them and therefore, they were not liable to produce any end-use certificate for the remaining quantity and were not liable to pay duty, is not acceptable - Since they have produced end-use certificate only for 76.385 MTs. out of 550 Mts. the demand is confirmed

Issues:
1. Dispute over the quantity of Heavy Melting Scrap received by the appellant.
2. Claim of not being liable to produce an end-use certificate for the entire quantity of scrap.
3. Challenge against the demand of duty imposed by the Revenue.
4. Allegation of enhancement of cargo value without providing an opportunity to explain.
5. Lack of effort by the appellants to verify the quantity of cargo before filing the bill of entry.
6. Failure to raise the issue of cargo value enhancement before the original adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
1. The dispute revolves around the quantity of Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS) received by the appellant, with the vessel being seized due to mis-declaration and undervaluation. The appellants claimed to have received only a portion of the total quantity mentioned in the bill of entry, leading to a demand for duty payment. The Tribunal noted the lack of efforts by the appellants to ascertain the actual quantity discharged by the vessel, ultimately holding them responsible for the consequences of filing the bill of entry without proper verification.

2. The appellants argued that they should not be required to produce an end-use certificate for the entire quantity of scrap mentioned in the bill of entry. However, the Tribunal found that since the appellants only provided an end-use certificate for a fraction of the total quantity, the demand for duty was rightfully confirmed by the Revenue.

3. The challenge against the demand of duty imposed by the Revenue was based on the appellants' claim of not receiving the full quantity of HMS. Despite this argument, the Tribunal upheld the confirmation of duty payment, emphasizing the importance of complying with the required documentation for the quantity received.

4. An allegation was raised regarding the enhancement of the cargo value without providing the appellants with an opportunity to explain or contest the valuation. The Tribunal noted that this issue was not raised before the original adjudicating authority, and since it was not a subject of dispute at any stage, the Tribunal deemed it unnecessary to delve into the valuation aspect.

5. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of effort by the appellants to verify the quantity of cargo before filing the bill of entry. The sequence of events indicated a failure on the part of the appellants to ensure the availability of the full quantity mentioned in the bill of entry, leading to potential consequences for the appellants.

6. Regarding the failure to raise the issue of cargo value enhancement before the original adjudicating authority, the Tribunal found that the valuation matter was not discussed or disputed at any stage of the proceedings. As a result, the Tribunal did not find it necessary to address the valuation aspect since it was not a subject of contention throughout the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected the appeal, emphasizing the importance of compliance with documentation requirements and the need for due diligence in verifying quantities before filing entries. The decision was pronounced in open court on 27-5-2008.

← Previous Next →