1987 (8) TMI 195 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods as brass metal instead of brass dross, leading to confiscation and penalty under Customs Act.
2. Alleged unauthorized import of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act due to lack of valid import license.
3. Discrepancy in valuation of imported goods and burden of proof on Department for under-valuation charge.
4. Applicability of Section 111(f) related to non-inclusion in import manifest.
5. Allegation of collusion with supplier for importing scrap in guise of dross.
6. Scope of rectification of mistake under Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The applicants sought rectification of the Tribunal's previous order, claiming misdeclaration of imported goods as brass metal instead of brass dross. The lower authority held the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act due to this misdeclaration, along with a penalty under Section 112.
2. The dispute involved the alleged unauthorized import of goods under Section 111(d) due to the absence of a valid import license. The lower authority's decision was based on the goods being classified under a specific entry in the policy book, which required a license for clearance.
3. The issue of valuation discrepancy was raised, with the burden of proof on the Department for the under-valuation charge. The Tribunal noted that the valuation was based on copper content, which might not reflect the actual market value of brass scrap.
4. Section 111(f) related to non-inclusion in the import manifest was discussed, with the applicants arguing that this clause was not applicable as they had no control over the manifest preparation.
5. The applicants denied collusion with the supplier to import scrap in the guise of dross, emphasizing that all declarations were made as per shipment documents, challenging the basis for confiscation under Section 111(m).
6. The Tribunal's order, based on a thorough review of evidence and circumstances, found no mistake warranting rectification. The order reducing the fine and penalty was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice, leading to the dismissal of the rectification application.