2018 (1) TMI 70 - AT - Customs

Benefit of N/N. 12/2012 dated 17.03.2012 (Serial No.332) - High Seas Sale - denial of benefit on the ground that re-rollable material has been imported along with scrap - confiscation - penalty - difference of opinion - Held that - As there are contrary views and difference of opinion between the Members, therefore, the matter be placed before the Hon ble President to appoint the Third Member for resolving the following - Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the goods which were purchased on high sea sale basis and were declared as heavy melting scrap in the documents of high seal seller, are not mis-declared and hence not liable to confiscation and no penalty is imposable, as held by Member (J)? Matter referred to Third Member.

Summary

Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods as Heavy Melting Scrap and re-rollable materials.
2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No.12/2012.
3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty.
4. Discrepancy between declared quantity and actual quantity of goods.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of imported goods
The appellant imported Heavy Melting Scrap and filed bills of entry claiming exemption under Notification No.12/2012. The consignment was found to contain re-rollable materials in addition to the scrap. The appellant argued that the re-rollable materials were of waste and scrap quality and should be considered under the same exemption. The Tribunal noted that all documents described the goods as Heavy Melting scrap, and any penalty imposed on the appellant was deemed unjustified.

Issue 2: Eligibility for exemption
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appellant's contention that the re-rollable materials should be exempted under the notification. However, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that the consignment was purchased on a high sea sale basis, and all documentation supported the classification of the goods as Heavy Melting scrap. The Tribunal set aside the impugned orders and allowed all three appeals.

Issue 3: Confiscation of goods and penalty
The Tribunal examined the confiscation of goods due to the presence of re-rollable materials. It was determined that the goods were correctly classified as Heavy Melting scrap, and the presence of re-rollable materials did not change this classification. Citing a previous Tribunal decision, the confiscation of goods was deemed unnecessary. The Tribunal also reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant.

Issue 4: Discrepancy in quantity
A separate order highlighted discrepancies in the declared quantity of Heavy Melting Scrap and the actual quantity found upon examination. The Member (Technical) concluded that mis-declaration of goods, especially when re-rollable scrap exceeded the declared quantity, warranted confiscation and penalty. The Member reduced the redemption fine and penalty but upheld the confiscation due to mis-declaration.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant on all issues, emphasizing the correct classification of the goods, eligibility for exemption, and the absence of sufficient grounds for confiscation and penalties. The discrepancies in declared quantities were also addressed, leading to a reduction in fines and penalties imposed on the appellant.