9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (10) TMI 344X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... everyone of us has to answer the God s court, nobody can escape. One year after the receipt of this letter, a show cause notice was issued (7-2-2001) to the appellants and in the impugned order which followed (3-1-2002), the Commissioner confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, but allowed them to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 10,00,000/-, redetermined the value of the new and serviceable blades as Rs. 2,035/- per kg. and that of old ones (scrap) as Rs. 90/- per kg., confirmed the duty of Rs. 64,90,057/- worked at the appropriate rates on a value of Rs. 96,74,181/- as determined by him to be the correct value of the goods, interest as applicable under Section 28AB of the said Act, and imposed penalti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yet again by a Government approved engineer. Whether the Government, State or Central, has approved engineers to examine circular saw blades is debatable. The third examination however was not carried out and the Department relied upon the expert opinion only to an extent. Further investigation revealed that the goods in question were also undervalued. The Customs determined the value of the goods in question under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. The value of old and used blades (scrap) was determined at Rs. 90/- per kg. based on the value accepted by Bangalore Customs when the present appellants imported a similar consignment there on 30-10-1999 and the value of the unused and serviceable blades was determined to be Rs. 2,03 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 6-9-2000, admitted that the goods covered under the said two bills of entry are not scrap of iron and steel as declared, but are second-hand goods the import of which should be covered under the valid licence and since they are not, the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act as the goods were not declared correctly. The persons concerned are liable to penal action. 6. The rival contentions have been examined in depth by us. As per the question whether the impugned goods are scrap as declared, we observe that the metallurgy expert who has examined the goods has clearly stated that the consignments covered under the two bills of entry consisted of new and unused circular saw blades and sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g so. Scrap cannot be considered as second-hand goods by any standard. His attempt to determine the value of the balance consignment on the basis of the value accepted at Bangalore Customs cannot be supported. For one thing, what it imported at Kandla is scrap and not samples as is in the case of consignment at Bangalore and for another scrap cannot be considered as second-hand goods. The Commissioner in his impugned order valued the scrap part of the consignment at Rs. 90/- per kg. This has to be rejected. The value as declared by the appellants will have to be accepted. 8. As has been pointed out earlier, since the consignment consisted of new blades and scrap which could be imported without the cover of an import licence, the goods are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
