2024 (8) TMI 1415 - AT - Customs

Confiscation - levy of redemption fine and penalty - misdeclaration of imported goods - the entire consignment was not heavy melting scrap but consisted of iron rods - HELD THAT - The examination report placed on record clearly establishes that the goods imported were partly Heavy Melting Scrap and partly Iron Rods this fact is not disputed. Based on this examination report the appellant requested for reassessment and as rightly argued by the Revenue they have not asked for mutilation instead sought reassessment. At the time of reassessment the classification and valuation undertaken by the Revenue is also not disputed. Having cleared the goods on the basis of the examination report which is not disputed now in the grounds of appeal cannot challenge the classification of the said goods. In fact the appellant admits that inadvertently the supplier could have sent the rods along with the scrap. Taking into account that in similar circumstances this Tribunal in the case of M/S. MINAR ALLOYS AND FORGINGS PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS) COCHIN. 2024 (8) TMI 1320 - CESTAT BANGALORE had upheld the classification of Iron Rods and valuation based on contemporaneous prices. Hence there are no reason not to accept the classification and valuation as decided by the Commissioner in the impugned order. However the fact that all the documents that accompanied the consignment declared the goods only as Heavy Metal Scrap; and there is no dispute that the appellant had also placed the purchase order only for Heavy Metal Scrap; and only after examination part of the goods it was found to be Iron Rods cannot be alleged as misdeclaration on the part of the appellant - the confiscation of goods under Section 111 (l) and (m) is set aside along with redemption fine and penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act 1962. The demand of duty is confired - the impugned order modified only to the extent of setting aside redemption fine and penalty - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues: Misdeclaration of goods, Confiscation under Customs Act, Valuation of goods, Reassessment request, Classification and valuation dispute

In this case, the appellant imported a consignment declared as Heavy Melting Scrap but was found to contain a mix of scrap and iron rods upon examination. The goods were confiscated under section 111(l) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, and a fine was imposed. The appellant argued that the sales contract was for scrap, supported by a certificate, and that there was no misdeclaration. They also contended that the goods should have been allowed for mutilation. The Revenue argued that the appellant later amended the declaration to include both scrap and rods, and the duty was assessed accordingly. The Tribunal noted that the examination report confirmed the mix of goods, and the appellant had requested reassessment, not mutilation. The Tribunal upheld the classification and valuation based on contemporaneous prices, citing a previous case precedent. The appellant's admission of the supplier's possible mistake and the absence of misdeclaration led to setting aside the confiscation, fine, and penalty under the Customs Act. The Tribunal confirmed the duty demand but modified the order to remove the redemption fine and penalty, disposing of the appeal accordingly.