9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (9) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 proposing to formulate the following substantial question of law for determination and consideration of this Court :- Whether in the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in holding that confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) and imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 upon the importer, the respondent herein, was neither justified nor warranted despite undisputedly there being misdeclaration and violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962? Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when undisputedly there was misdeclaration and misdescription of the goods imported as mentioned in the bill of entry, was the Tribunal ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... instead of Mixed Metal Scrap as declared by the importer. The declared goods were valued at US $ 625 PMT and 600 PMT respectively whereas the contemporary value for brass scrap Shoney grade was found to be at US $ 1028 CIF. In this view of the matter, show-cause notice was issued. Reply was given by the importer and thereafter, the matter was taken up for adjudication by the Commissioner of Customs and order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs on 16-12-2002 wherein he has taken the view that goods, in question, covered under bills are liable for confiscation for contravention of the provision under Section 111(d) 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. He has, however, given an option to the importer to redeem the impugned goods on a fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 16-8-2002 which has fixed the tariff value at the rate of 1028 US $ per MT. It is the say of the importer that merely because there were traces of zinc and iron found with the scrap, the same cannot be held to be SHoney Grade . Since the value for assessment was according to the tariff value, there was no intention to evade any customs duty. After considering the submissions made on behalf of the rival parties, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there was no evidence to prove that the value declared by the importer is a manipulated one. The Tribunal has also held that the respondent importer has claimed valuation for assessment purpose as per tariff value under Notification No. 52/2002 dated 16-8-2002. The Tribunal has also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
