9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 166X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1975 shall be leviable in respect of the sizes that tally, as per the Notification No. 41/89-CET and in respect of the other sizes as per CET Tariff under heading 4011.99. I order confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give option to the importer to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1,00,000 (Rupees One lakh only). I also impose penalty of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only). The fine should be paid within one month from the date of receipt of the order. The penalty should be paid forthwith. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that M/s. M.A. Exports filed Bill of Entry describing the goods as rubber tyres (casing for retreading) and sought clearance thereof against E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the appellants submitted that used tyres which fall under Chapter Heading No. 4012 of the Customs Tariff would fall under Appendix 2(B) 172 or Appendix 2(B) 174 which reads All defective/scrap material as well as cuttings of items appearing in Appendix 2-Part B or Appendix 3(A) 443 and Appendix 6 List 8 Part 576; that the appellant was entitled to import and get clearance of the goods under Appendix 3(A) 443 of the Import Policy; that the judgment quoted at para 3 in the case of M/s. Khandelwal Metal and Engg. Works reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 was not applicable to their case; that the goods imported by them were available in India and that what they had claimed was that they were not manufactured product and therefore they were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of M/s. Khandelwal Metal Engg. Co., reported in 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 had held that CVD under Section 3(1) of the Customs [Tariff] Act could be levied on the brass scrap when imported because the taxable event is import of the goods into India and not their manufacture; that the duty referred to in the Section 3(i) of the Customs [Tariff] Act, 1975 is, therefore, leviable even if the imported goods are not Customs [Tariff] Act manufactured in India or are not manufactured in India. The ld. SDR therefore, submitted that even if old and used tyres are articles which are not manufactured in India, countervailing duty under the Customs Tariff Act will be considered as leviable equivalent to Excise duty leviable on like articles if manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he value of the goods by the adjudicating authority was in accordance with Rules. 10. On the first issue, we observe that the adjudicating authority has precisely dealt with the issues in paras 3, 4 and 5 which are reproduced below for the sake of proper appreciation.:- 3. I have carefully gone through the facts of the case. Firstly, there is no dispute regarding classification under Customs Tariff under Heading 4012.90 The dispute is regarding CVD leviable. The argument advanced by the importer is that for manufacturing products, no CVD will be leviable. However, this argument has been negated by the Hon ble Supreme Court in their judgment reported at 1985 (20) E.L.T. 222 in case of M/s. Khandelwal Metal and Engineering Works v. U.O.I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such because of cutting up, wear or other reasons. The subject goods are usable as Tyres though old. The importer has claimed the subject goods under OGL at S.No. 576 as `raw material as cut tyres/tubes. This entry is as under:- used/scrap rubber tyres/rubber tubes cut in (each tyre has to be cut in before it is shipped from the Export Country or before it is cleared from the Customs authority)- engaged in reclaiming the rubber tyre. 4. In the present case the subject goods have not been subjected to cut before the shipment and further, the importer is a trading company and not an actual user engaged in reclaiming the rubber tyres. Therefore, entry at S. No. 576 of Appdx 6 List 8 Part I is not applicable. 5. The next submission of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority has in his order simply said I order the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act to be determined as Rs. 2 lakhs CIF . No evidence has been brought on record as to why the transaction value indicated by the appellants in the Bill of Entry was not accepted. The adjudicating authority has simply gone by what valuation was done by the Customs Appraiser. No reasons have been assigned as to why the value declared in the Bill of Entry was not accepted nor any evidence has been brought on record to show that the fair value of the goods at the time and place of importation was Rs. 2 lakhs. In the absence of any documentary evidence or any cogent reasoning given by the adjudicating authority for not accepting the transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
