2016 (11) TMI 1271 - AT - Customs

Detention of consignment - re-rollable scrap - the weight of the consignment was shown as 96.750 MTs of heavy melting scrap whereas it was found as 106.200 MTs - Held that - on examination part of the consignment was found re-rollable scrap but the appellant has placed an order for supply of Heavy Melting Scrap and the certificate of origin also certifies the same. The appellant has actual used the said goods as Heavy Melt Scrap. Without any contrary evidence on record, I hold that goods are not liable for confiscation on this ground. Further, I find the charge of mis-declaration of weight. I find that as during the examination goods were found in excess to the declared weight, therefore, the goods are rightly held liable for confiscation by the lower authorities. Therefore, I do agree with the impugned order that on account of excess weight, the goods are liable for confiscation. As the goods impugned are not restricted goods therefore, they can be released on payment of redemption fine and penalty. Further, I find that the redemption fine & penalty imposed on the appellant highly excessive and the goods cannot be held liable for confiscation on the change of mis declaration of description, I reduce the redemption fine to ₹ 40,000/- and penalty to ₹ 15,000/- - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant for importing goods declared as heavy melting scrap but found to be re-rollable scrap with discrepancies in weight.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported a consignment declared as heavy melting scrap but was found to be re-rollable scrap with discrepancies in weight. The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine and penalty, which was challenged by the appellant. The Ld. Commissioner (A) upheld the order but reduced the fine and penalty. The appellant contended that the goods were used as heavy melting scrap as per their order and certificate of origin, and any discrepancies were due to the supplier's mistake, not intentional mis-declaration.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the goods were used as heavy melting scrap as intended, and any discrepancies in weight were not intentional. The appellant had ordered heavy melting scrap, supported by the certificate of origin. The appellant's intention was not to mis-declare the quantity/weight, attributing the discrepancies to the supplier's error during examination.

3. The Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant for the discrepancies in weight and declaration of the imported goods.

4. After hearing both parties and considering their submissions, the tribunal examined the case. The tribunal found that although the goods were initially declared as re-rollable scrap, the appellant had ordered heavy melting scrap and used the goods accordingly. No contrary evidence was presented to challenge this usage, leading to the conclusion that the goods were not liable for confiscation based on this ground.

5. However, the tribunal upheld the charge of mis-declaration of weight due to the excess weight found during examination. Consequently, the goods were deemed liable for confiscation. Since the goods were not restricted, they could be released upon payment of redemption fine and penalty. The tribunal deemed the initially imposed fine and penalty as excessive, reducing the redemption fine to ?40,000 and penalty to ?15,000. The appeal was disposed of based on these observations.