9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (7) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aising officer of the Department, who examined the goods in the presence of the appellants C.H.A., found that the goods were Aluminium Scrap which had been remelted into shapes of bowls for convenience in shipping. The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, who re-examined the goods, later on, pursuant to directions of the Commissioner (Adjudicating Authority) at the adjudication stage, also found that the goods were melted/sweated aluminium scrap cast in the shapes of bowls apparently for the sake of convenience in shipping. In his report of re-examination, the Deputy Commissioner further observed that the goods appeared to be aluminium scrap of Throb ISRI grade. On the basis of the examination report, the Department propose to confiscate th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... packing list, insurance policy, Bill of Lading and the Bill of Entry. He has pointed out that, in all these documents the goods were described as Aluminium Tense Scrap and submitted that the description on the Bill of Entry was made on the basis of the description given by the foreign supplier in the other documents aforesaid. There is no misdeclaration of the goods, according to learned Counsel. In order to show that the grade of the aluminium scrap happened to be wrongly mentioned as Tense instead of Throb in the various documents at the end of the supplier, the appellants had furnished to the adjudicating authority the correspondence between them and the supplier. Copies of these letters have been placed on record in the present a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. Learned Counsel has further pointed out that the Commissioner has given a specific finding that the imported goods were aluminium scrap and, after having reached such a finding it was not open to him to classify the goods under any sub-heading outside 7602.00. The further finding of the adjudicating authority that the appellant s misdeclaration of the goods was based on his finding as regards classification. Since the finding of classification is per se wrong, consequently, the finding of misdeclaration of goods cannot be sustained, submits learned Counsel. Consequently no order of the confiscation of the goods could have been passed and for that matter, no redemption fine or penalty could have been lawfully imposed on the appellants. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 98,000/- and also an order of imposition of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellants. It is not an order of classification of the goods, though the aspect of classification looms large in the discussion of the subject by the adjudicating authority. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the jurisdictional objection raised by learned JDR. 7. The simple issue, which has arisen before me, is whether the appellants misdeclared the goods. The fact that the goods were described in the Bill of Entry by the appellants on the basis of the description of goods in the documents which accompanied the consignment is not in dispute. The only description for purposes of payment of duty is whether the goods are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
