9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are misdeclaration of imported goods, eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 11/97, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, and assessment of goods. Misdeclaration of Imported Goods: The appellant, A.P. Steel Rolling Mills Ltd., imported a consignment of heavy melting steel scrap but part of the goods were found to be usable items like MS rods, MS sheets, GI pipes, and others not eligible for exemption. The Customs authorities confiscated the goods and imposed penalties for misdeclaration. The appellant contended that the goods were scrap meant for melting and reformation, and the declaration should have been accepted. The Tribunal noted that scrap is bound to contain articles in different shapes and forms, and in this case, the goods were assorted iron scrap not new goods usable as such. The charge of misdeclaration was deemed unsustainable, leading to the setting aside of the order related to confiscation and penalties. Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 11/97: The appellant sought assessment under Notification No. 11/97, which allows concessions for melting scrap. Despite the dispute over the nature of the imported goods, the Tribunal found that the appellant, as an actual user importing for melting in its factory, was eligible for the exemption. The Tribunal did not interfere with the valuation and assessment of the goods since they had already been cleared after duty payment. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalties: The Customs authorities confiscated the goods and imposed penalties due to the alleged misdeclaration of the imported goods. The appellant argued that the goods were meant for melting and reformation, and the declaration should have been accepted. The Tribunal found that the charge of misdeclaration was not sustainable as the goods were assorted iron scrap not new goods usable as such. Consequently, the order related to confiscation and penalties was set aside. Assessment of Goods: The Tribunal did not interfere with the valuation and assessment of the goods since the appellants had already cleared the goods after payment of duty. The appeal was partially allowed to the extent that the order related to confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties was set aside, while the valuation and assessment were not disturbed.
|
