Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1987 (8) TMI 195

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... have held that the imported goods were brass metal and not brass dross and the applicants misdeclared the description and value of the goods, which made the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) and the applicants became liable to penalty under Section112 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) The lower authority has held that the imported goods were covered by Serial No. 442 of Appendix-4 Part-A of AM 85 I.T.C. Policy Book as non-ferrous alloy and required a valid import licence for their clearance. As the applicants could not produce an import licence, the import of the goods was unauthorised and the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of the Imports & Exports(Control) Act, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g that on the basis of 69.1% copper, the value declared would be U.S. $ 0.60 per lb. CIF Bombay based on the value of U.S. $ 0.45 per lb CIF Bombay for 52 to 55% copper. In the sale of brass scrap in the international market it is not determined on the basis of the copper content. It depends upon the type of scrap, how clear it is, the demand and supply, etc. The burden of establishing the charge of under-valuation is on the Department. The Department has not disclosed any evidence to show that any amount other than the CIF value had been remitted for the goods. (iv) The aforesaid discloses a mistake on the part of the Tribunal apparent on the face of the record. Hence the Tribunal may rectify the mistake and hold that there was no justifi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the prayer for rectification of mistake. In the said case it was held that rectification could be made if the mistake was apparent from record and not from something which could be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. 3. Arguing for the respondent Shri Gopinath explained the scope of rectification of mistake and relied on this Tribunal's decision in Metal Extruders (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 198 (Tribunal). In this decision, it has been held that errors apparent from record, which does not require elaborate arguments, can be rectified under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Shri Gopinath has argued that even if an argument goes to the root .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Collector held the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(f) of the Act as the imported goods, viz. brass, were not mentioned in the import manifest. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the applicants under Section 112 of the Customs Act as they deliberately misdeclared the description and value of the goods. 5. The points in dispute in this case are whether the imported goods are brass or brass dross, whether there is mis-declaration of the description and value of the goods attracting the provisions of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, whether the goods were, inter alia, liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(f) of the Customs Act and whether applicants were liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Act .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s no evidence on record to the effect that the supplier had sent brass metal instead of brass dross by mistake. It was also observed that there was a big difference in the price of brass metal and brass dross and that no prudent seller would sell expensive item at a lower rate. The Tribunal, therefore, was of the view that the applicants were liable to penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 'However, to meet the ends of justice the Tribunal reduced the fine in lieu of confiscation from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 4.5 lakhs in respect of each of the two bills of entry and also reduced the penalty from Rs. 1 lakh to Rs. 50.000/-. 6. The Tribunal's Order dated 27-10-1986 was based on the proper appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates