9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 400X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Entry dated 20-2-2001 for clearing the goods. They classified the goods under Heading 7204.49 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act and claimed the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Customs Notification No. 16/2000 dated 1-3-2000. The CIF value declared for the goods in the Bills of Entry was US $ 7848.75, for a declared total quantity of 68.25 MTs. The goods in the three containers were examined by the departmental officers and this yielded the following results :- S.No. Nature and ascertained description of goods Weights (MTs) 1. G.I. wire rolls/bundles 53.150 2. Iron wire rope in coils (with rust formation on the surface) 12.650 3. Aluminium sheet rolls 01.950 4. Misprint sheets 01.200 5. Bearings ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s and "V"-Belts under Customs Tariff entries 7217.90, 73.12, 7210.11, 7606.11, 8482.10, 4015.19 and 4010.21 respectively and deny the benefit of the Customs Notification No. 16/2000 dated 1-3--2000; (c) to deman Customs duty of Rs. 8,45,877/- on the goods, (d) to confiscate the goods under Section 111(f), (l) and (m) of the Customs Act and (e) to impose penalty on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Act. These proposals were contested by the party. 2. Before proceeding to adjudicate the disputes, the Commissioner personally inspected the goods at ICD, Madurai in the presence of the appellants and found that bulk of the consignment was found to be G.I.wire in rolls/coils in running length. He directed the Superintendent of Customs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 (156) E.L.T. 458 (P&H). 3. In the present appeal, the Commissioner's order in the remanded proceedings is challenged mainly on the ground that the Commissioner, not being an expert, is not competent to certify the goods to be 'scrap' on the basic of his own visual examination and that there is no evidence of misdeclaration of the goods or its value by the appellants. It is also contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, mutilation of the goods ought to have been allowed so that they could be used for the intended purpose. At the time of personal hearing, ld. counsel for the appellants submitted that the relevant invoices issued by the foreign supplier had described the goods as "light melting scrap". It was describe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mutilate the goods. He has also contended that, as there was no misdeclaration of the goods by the party, the Commissioner's order confiscating the goods and imposing penalty on the party cannot be sustained. In the case of Madanlal Steel Industries (supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that multilation of goods misdeclared by the importer was not to be permitted under Section 24 of the Customs Act. In the instant case, therefore, the primary question is whether the appellants can be held to have misdeclared the goods. If it is held that they misdeclared the goods, they cannot be permitted to mutilate them. In one of the invoices issued by the supplier, the goods was described as "M.S. & G.I, WIRE SCRAP", while the other invoic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e main peace of evidence, found by the Commissioner in support of his finding of misdeclaration, is the physical examination report of his predecessor-in-office. But, in our view, this physical examination report would not necessarily call for a finding that the entire consignment contained usable/serviceable materials only. The physical examination done by the Commissioner, not being an expert competent to certify the goods to be usable/serviceable, cannot claim unquestionable authenticity. In the circumstances, on the question whether the imported goods were useable/serviceable, we have to give the benefit of doubt to the importer. As the Commissioner himself chose not to take the importer's statement as conclusive evidence of misde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter stage. 6. For the reasons noted above, we are of the view that the appellants should be allowed to clear the goods in mutilated condition, on payment of duty as applicable to scrap. The goods were confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act on the ground of misdeclaration and the penalty was imposed on the importer under Section 112 of the Act on the ground that the importer, by misdeclaring the goods, rendered the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111. Now that we have found no misdeclaration of the goods by the importer, there is no reason for confiscation of the goods or for penalty on the importer. 7. In the result, we set aside the impugned order to the extent of setting aside confiscation (with redemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
