9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (8) TMI 249X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Gopal Hegde, Member (J)]. - This appeal is directed against the order-in-original bearing No.S/10-78/83D dated 25.5.1983 passed by the Collector of Customs, Bombay. 2. The Subject of challenge is the order of confiscation of 138 bales Hydraulics Hose and the fine of Rs. 75,000/- levied in lieu of confiscation. 3. Shri Biradar appearing for the Appellants contended that what was imported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Prabhu for the respondent, while opposing this appeal, contended that the appellants have rightly described their goods as falling under Tariff Heading 40.05/16.1 which covers rubber, synthetic rubber, Factice and articles thereof." It was further submitted by Shri Prabhu that the goods imported cannot be considered as article of steel. Finally, Shri Prabhu urged that the fine levied works out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the personal hearing the appellant s representative was specifically asked as to which heading of the Tariff covers the goods imported by them. It appears the representative of the appellants promised to consider and send a letter specifying the heading but then though the representative sent a letter it was silent as to the heading of the tariff item within which the goods would fall. The catal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned Collector committed an error in treating the goods as rubber hose has no merit. The Collector, in our opinion, had rightly ordered confiscation. 9. The only question that remains for consideration is about the quantum of fine. The c.i.f. value of the goods was Rs. 2,52,489/. The fine levied lieu of confiscation is Rs. 75,000/-. It roughly works out to 30%. 10. It is not disputed that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
