9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Order-in-Original No. 31/ADC/CUS/02 dated 12-9-2002, ordered that the 15.675 MT of M.S. Rounds to be classified under Tariff sub-heading No. 7214.20 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 7.67 per kg. He ordered the confiscation of 16.500 MT of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, in exercise of the powers conferred upon under Section 125 ibid, he gave the option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/- besides payment of duty and other charges leviable, if any. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- on the appellants under Section 112(a) ibid. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the above order. Hence this appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the cargo did not appear to be HMP as declared by the appellants, but contains MS round of different dimension, diameter and length and were fresh and usable. 15.675 MTs out of 16.500 MTs goods of the above said container appeared to be M.S. Rounds classifiable under Heading No. 72.14 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (1 of 1975) attracting higher rate of Customs duty as compared to HMS which is a low value item attracting lower rate of duty. 8. The authorities in the case of identically placed importers M/s. Sona Castings Ltd. and M/s. Bhawani Castings Ltd., duly permitted clearance after mutilation of material containing serviceable material. Similarly, in the case of M/s Dutt Multi Metals Ltd., the High Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of goods as fresh bars and rods instead of HMS as declared. In this connection, it is to be noted that the appellants had placed order for HMS on the supplier/exporter. The invoice under the cover of which goods were supplied also described the goods as HMS and the price was also accordingly charged. Thus, the appellants had no means to know in advance as to what is contained in the container is fresh bars and rods or HMS. The true identity of the goods could have been ascertained only after the containers were opened and inspected. Therefore, the rejection of the request of mutilation by the Commissioner (Appeals) on this ground is also not correct. 12. The legislation has created specific provision under Section 24 of the Customs Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 24 was not to condone or erase the consequences of an offence that had been committed. Whereas in the case before us, it is on record that the appellants, vide their letter dated 25-5-2000, 9-6-2000 and 23-6-2000, had requested the Customs Authorities for granting permission for mutilation of the goods weighing 15.675 MTs out of 133.573 MTs, which were found to be serviceable. Immediately after the import of the impugned goods on 25-4-2000 vide Bill of Entry No. 688, repeated requests were made by the appellants for permission to mutilate the offending goods before their release. This clearly establishes their bona fide and, therefore, the above observations of the Supreme Court cannot be blindly applied to the present case. 15. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
