9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S$ 1500 per ton. The quantity imported by M/s. Madhu Sudan Metals was 94.28 MT. while the quantity imported by the other appellant was 96.710 MT and both bills of entry are dated 19-11-2004. The goods were ordered to be examined on first check basis as the import was from Mexico and there was no pre-shipment inspection certificate required as per para 3.32 of the Handbook of Procedure 2004-2009. The goods imported by M/s. Madhu Sudan Metals were found to consist of :- (1) 28.73 MT of stainless steel sheets 304 grade (2) 37.55 MT of secondary/defective stainless steel sheets 304 grade, and (3) 27.40 MT of secondary/defective stainless steel strips 304 grade. The goods imported by M/s. Madhav Steel were found to consist of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eel melting scrap 304 grade in the form of strips (not serviceable) 72042190 1500 3. In view of the above misdeclaration of description and value, show cause notice dated 30-3-2005 was issued to both the importers, proposing confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. The notices were adjudicated by the Commissioner who rejected the request of the importers for mutilation in the factory of an actual user on the ground that the importers were traders, and upheld the charges in the show cause notices, confiscated the goods under the provisions of Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, with option to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs only) (in the case of M/s. Madhu Sudan Metal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant, and finding that such offer was made only after the offence had been discovered and that rules had not been made under Section 24 for mutilation of LDPE films imported by Hardik Industrial Corpn., set aside the Tribunal s order directing mutilation of goods in such a manner that they could be used only for recycling and not for any other purposes, we are of the view that the Commissioner should have permitted mutilation. We, therefore, set aside the impugned orders and direct mutilation of the goods imported by the appellants herein in the factory of the actual users whose names have been indicated by the appellants. On mutilation, the goods shall be chargeable to duty at such rate as would be applicable if the goods have been impor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
