9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (1) TMI 741X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent. [Order per : P. Karthikeyan, Member (T)]. The captioned appeals have been filed by M/s. Uma Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Chennai against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai. Facts of the case in the impugned orders are that the appellants had filed Bills of Entry No. 22432 dated 23-8-1999 and 22433 dated 23-8-1999 for clearance of consignments declared as Light Melting Scrap . On examination of the cargo, it was found that the consignments comprised galvanized sheets, tin sheets, coils, metal strips, diesel engine parts etc. in addition to light melting scrap. In both the cases, the undeclared material other than scrap formed substantial part of the consignment. Show Cause Notices were issued alleging mis-dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch item and arrived at the differential duty due. The Commissioner disposed both the Show Cause Notices demanding differential duty of Rs. 5,25,704/- in respect of Bill of Entry No. 22432 and Rs. 7,70,334/- in respect of Bill of Entry No. 22433. The mis-declared goods were confiscated invoking Section 111(d), (i), (l), (m) (o) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the Act) in both the cases. The goods found to be light melting scarp were confiscated under Section 119 of the Act on the ground that they had been used to conceal goods found liable for confiscation. The Commissioner ordered redemption of the consignment on payment of Rs. 2.50 lakhs and Rs. 4.00 lakhs. The 7 containers used for transporting the consignment covered by the first Bill of Ent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere ordered. Moreover, the Commissioner had taken into account the liability of the goods to confiscation under Section 111(i), (l) and (o) also in ordering high amounts of redemption fine. The learned Counsel prayed for leniency as regards both fine and penalty. The learned Jt. CDR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner. 3. We have carefully considered the facts of the case and the rival submissions. We find that there is no valid challenge to the Commissioner s finding of mis-declaration of description of galvanized sheets, tin sheets, metal strips, diesel engine parts etc. We also find that the Commissioner has determined the assessable value of these goods relying on accepted transaction value of similar goods. Once the allegatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
