9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (6) TMI 421X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ared the goods as heavy melting scrap (HMS) (quantity 254.870 MTs) and undervalued the same to avail the benefit of customs duty. The officers of DRI acting on specific information visited CFS, Ludhiana and examined all those containers in the presence of Vivek Walia, appellant, authorised representative of the firm and two Chartered Engineers, Shri J.S. Oberoi and Shri Rajesh Shori. On examination, all the containers were found to contain fresh bars and rods of iron and steel of the length varying from 4 to 12 and diameter 10mm to 28mm. The officers also noticed that one container was already opened and some pieces of bars and rods were found to have been loaded from that container in a truck. All the goods along with the truck were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act. For getting expert opinion, the goods were got examined from the chartered engineers named above, who submitted their reports that the imported goods had been manufactured from prime raw material and not defective or secondary. Shri Vivek Walia, authorised representative of the firm in his statement also disclosed that the goods had been purchased by the firm from M/s. Sara Universal, New Delhi on high sea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ept the version of the firm and its partners, appellants 2 and 3 and passed the impugned order. 5. The learned Counsel has contended that there was no misdeclaration and under-valuation of the goods by the firm and its partners named above as they purchased the goods on high sea sale basis and that the goods even in a situation of misdescription and under-valuation, should have been delivered to them after mutilation. The Counsel has further contended that the value for the assessment purposes had not been arrived at correctly in accordance with Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules 1988 (hereinafter referred to as Valuation Rules, 1988 ). Regarding imposition of penalties, the Counsel has argued that the same deserves to be set aside as there was no mala fide intention on the part of any of the appellants to evade payment of customs duty. 6. On the other hand, learned SDR has reiterated the correctness of the impugned order. 7. We have heard both sides. So far as the misdeclaration of the goods and under-valuation of the same in the Bill of Entry filed by the authorised representative of the appellant s firm is concerned, it stands ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner for getting the goods redeemed also cannot be said to be in any manner arbitrary or exorbitant, being of only Rs. 2 lakhs. The goods being MS bars and rods had been also rightly ordered to be classified under sub-heading 7214.20 of the First Schedule appended to Customs Tariff Act, by the adjudicating authority. We do not find any illegality in this regard in the impugned order. 10. The contention of the Counsel that the goods should have been released after mutilation and treated as scrap for all intends and purposes including that of value assessment cannot be accepted, keeping in view all the above referred facts and circumstances. The firm and its partners and the authorised representative named above, have in the first instance tried to hoodwink the Customs authorities. They intentionally misdeclared the goods in the Bill of Entry as steel scrap whereas the goods were fresh iron/steel bars/rods, etc. with the sole intention to avoid payment of appropriate customs duty in respect thereof. When they had been caught, they have come up with this plea that their goods should be mutilated and treated as scrap. It is well settled that one who seeks equity must come with the cle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, but the description declared was off-cuts. Since the imported goods were not of prime quality, the mutilation of the same was allowed. But in the case in hand, the imported goods had been found to be of prime quality and misdeclaration was intentional. For the reasons/facts detailed above, no benefit of the ratio of law laid down in Madan Lal Steel Industries v. Union of India - 1991 (56) E.L.T. 705 can be also extended to the appellants for allowing mutilation of the goods and treating the same as scrap for the purpose of valuation. In the light of the discussion made above, the Board s directions vide F. No. 446/9/95-Cus., dated 16-6-95 referred by the Counsel is also of no avail to the appellants in view of the nature of the goods imported by them by making a false declaration as scrap. 12. The ratio of law laid down in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 3 by the Apex Court that the classification of the material cannot be made on the basis of size of the goods, is not applicable to the appellant s case. In the instant case on examination of their goods by two chartered engineers, the same had been found to be not scrap but the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
