2010 (12) TMI 92

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing list and mill test certificate (MTC).  The goods were examined, whereupon it was found that a part of the goods was non-alloy steel.  Since the MTCs in respect of all the goods were not made available, the importer was required to produce MTCs in respect of the remaining goods also.  The goods were subsequently re-examined for segregation of the quantities of alloy steel and non-alloy steel.  It was found that, out of the total declared quantity of 1444.90 MTs, only 519.27 MTs were found to be alloy steel. The remaining quantity of 924.63 MTs were found to be non-alloy steel, which was allegedly misdeclared by the importer.  It was also observed that the invoice and packing list mentioned two grades of stee .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... CHA.  His order indicates that the CHA was heard as representative of the importer.  There is nothing to show that the CHA was called upon to show cause why a penalty should not be imposed on them under Section 112 of the Customs Act, nor is there anything to indicate that any opportunity of being personally heard was given to the CHA.  If the CHA was heard, they were heard only as representative of the importer.  They never got an opportunity to argue for themselves against any proposal for penalty.  Section 124 of the Customs Act mandates issuance of show-cause notice before imposing any penalty on any person under the Customs Act.  The proviso to Section 124 says that such notice may, at the request of the p .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... case of Phil Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, Goa 2001 (134) ELT 206 (Tri.-Mumbai) cited by the learned counsel, it was found by this Tribunal that the misdeclaration of description of the goods imported by the above company did not lead to any loss of revenue and, therefore, confiscation of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act was not sustainable.  If the ratio of the cited decision is applied to the present case, the Commissioners order of confiscation itself will have to be set aside and, in that event, the penalty under Section 112 of the Act on the importer and on their CHA shall stand vacated.  The learned counsel has also usefully cited CC vs. P.V. Ukkru International Trade 2009 (235) ELT 229 (Ker.).  He has suc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X