9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority on each appellant is only Rs. 50,000, from which it appears that the learned Commissioner was very fair to the appellants - In the result, both the appeals get dismissed - C/568-569/2005-Mum. - - - Dated:- 23-3-2011 - Mr. P.G. Chacko, Mr. Sahab Singh, JJ. Shri Brijesh Pathak, Advocate for appellant Shri B.P. Pareira, Authorised Representative (DR), for respondent Per: P.G. Chacko These appeals were filed by two importers, who filed their bills of entry in November 2004 for clearance of the goods which were imported by them and declared as Stainless Steel Melting Scrap Grade 304 . The unit price declared by both the importers was US$ 1500 per ton (CIF) based on invoices issued by the supplier. Both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... strips 304 grade (not serviceable); [2] 39.97 MTs of secondary/defective stainless steel sheets 304 grade; [3] 2.10 MTs of secondary/defective stainless steel sheet 400 series grade; [4] 12.78 MTs of stainless steel melting scrap 304 grade in the form of strips (not serviceable); [5] contemporary import prices 1500, 2100, 1500 and 1500 US$ per MT respectively. 2. On the basis of the above results of examination of the goods, the Customs authorities found misdeclaration of description and value of the goods by both the importers and accordingly the goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act. Investigations continued by way of recording of statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act. One Shri R.J. Virwadia, partner of both ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ine and (b) imposing penalties. In respect of M/s. Madhu Sudan Metals and M/s. Madhav Steel, the learned Commissioner imposed redemption fines of Rs. 8,00,000/-(Rupees eight lakhs only) and Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs only) respectively and penalties of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) each. The option to redeem the goods was to be exercised within 30 days. The appropriate duty was also required to be paid at the time of redemption of the goods. 4. These appeals arise pursuant to the Hon ble High Court s remand order dated 1.9.2010, which was passed in Customs Appeal Nos. 66 68/2006 filed by the department. 5. The learned Counsel has reiterated the grounds of the appeals. He, further, submits that there was no way ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mined by the Commissioner against the appellants are also not liable to be modified. The penalty of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) imposed on each appellant is quite reasonable. Therefore, the impugned orders have to be upheld, according to the learned JDR. 7. After considering the submissions, we find that the question of pre-clearance mutilation of the goods does not survive. The goods were admittedly cleared by the appellants. Therefore, for the same reason, the apex court s judgment in Collector of Cus., Bombay Vs. Hardik Industrial Corporation 1998 (97) E.L.T. 25 (S.C.) cited by the learned JDR is not relevant. 8. We are primarily concerned with the decision of the Commissioner confiscating the goods (with redemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce of the goods to ensure that the consignment did not contain any type of arms, ammunition, mines, shells, cartridges, radioactive, contaminated or any other explosive material in any form. It is not in dispute that no such certificate was produced by the appellants at the time of clearance of the goods. The learned counsel has submitted that the examination of the goods did not disclose the presence of arms, ammunition, mines, shells or the like in the consignments and, therefore, the non-production of the above certificate would not be fatal. This argument is not acceptable. The above requirement of the policy was one to be met at the time of filing the bills of entry. The examination of the goods took place at a posterior stage. The req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
