2018 (2) TMI 954 - AT - Customs

Mis-declaration of imported goods - heavy melting scrap - redemption fine - penalty - Held that - at the time of examination, neither the appellant asked for examination of the report nor disputed the same instead of that he wrote a letter that they have no objection for holding by the department that 142 MT is re-rollable material and the appellant was ready to pay differential customs duty on the said material. As the said fact is on record that the classification of the goods question as re-rollable material has not been disputed before clearance, in that circumstance, the appellant can not agitate the same at this stage. Redemption fine - penalty - Held that - the goods were re-rollble material and the same has been admitted by the appellant on pointing out by the Revenue. Therefore, the goods have been mis-declared by the appellant - redemption fine and penalty rightly imposed. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues:
- Differential duty demanded on imported goods
- Imposition of redemption fine and penalty for mis-declaration of goods

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested an order demanding a differential duty and imposing a redemption fine and penalty due to mis-declaration of imported goods. The goods were declared as heavy melting scrap but were found to contain re-rollable material upon examination, leading to proceedings against the appellant.

2. The appellant, disputing the classification of the goods, argued that there was no examination report confirming the presence of re-rollable material. The appellant claimed that all goods were heavy melting scrap, supported by a pre-shipment certificate. The appellant contended that no mis-declaration occurred, thus challenging the imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

3. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not dispute the classification of goods as re-rollable material during the examination. Instead, the appellant expressed readiness to pay the differential duty on the identified material. As such, the Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument, upholding the classification of goods as re-rollable material and dismissing the appellant's contention.

4. Regarding the redemption fine and penalty, the appellant argued that since there was no fault in the declaration, no penalties should be imposed. However, the Tribunal found that the appellant admitted to mis-declaration upon the Revenue's identification of the re-rollable material. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The decision was based on the acknowledgment of mis-declaration by the appellant and the absence of grounds to overturn the classification of goods and the imposition of penalties.