9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Mis-declaration of imported goods as waste and scrap, classification of goods under Chapter Heading 7610.90, challenge to examination report and Mahazar, imposition of penalty, requirement of license for import.
Mis-declaration of imported goods as waste and scrap: The appeal stemmed from an Order-in-Appeal confirming the classification of imported goods as Aluminium frames in rectangular form, not waste and scrap, under Chapter Heading 7610.90. The appellants contested the findings, alleging no Mahazar or examination report, and claimed innocence regarding the mis-declaration. They argued that the Mahazar was biased and lacked essential details of witnesses. However, the examination report and panchnama clearly identified the items as Aluminium frames, not waste and scrap. The appellants' absence and failure to challenge the Mahazar or cross-examine witnesses before lower authorities weakened their case. The appellate tribunal noted that the appellants' contentions lacked merit, as the examination report, drawn on the spot, confirmed the nature of the goods, justifying the mis-declaration charge. Challenge to examination report and Mahazar: The appellants disputed the authenticity of the examination report and Mahazar, alleging bias and lack of essential details in the latter. However, the tribunal found that the examination report, based on on-the-spot inspection, conclusively identified the goods as Aluminium frames in rectangular form. The failure of the appellants to challenge the Mahazar or seek cross-examination of witnesses at earlier stages weakened their belated contentions, which were deemed as afterthoughts by the tribunal. The tribunal upheld the correctness of the Mahazar and examination report, emphasizing the appellants' failure to provide substantial evidence supporting their claim of importing waste and scrap. Imposition of penalty: The tribunal highlighted the meagre penalty imposed and the appellants' inability to prove that the imported goods were solely waste and scrap. The appellants' failure to challenge the penalty's justification or provide evidence supporting their claims further weakened their position. The tribunal deemed the penalty appropriate based on the mis-declaration and upheld its imposition, considering the appellants' lack of substantiated arguments against it. Requirement of license for import: The tribunal emphasized that the imported Aluminium frames required a license for import, as they did not fall under the Open General License (OGL) list. The appellants' failure to address this aspect in their appeal or written submissions further undermined their case. The tribunal concluded that the grounds raised by the appellants lacked merit, as they failed to provide compelling arguments or evidence to support their claims. Consequently, the tribunal confirmed the impugned order, rejecting the appeal and upholding the re-classification of goods and the imposition of penalties.
|
