9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 56X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vident from the records - appellant directed to make a pre-deposit - C/348/10 & C/707/10 - - - Dated:- 25-1-2012 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Mr. R. Raghavan, Advocate for the appellant Mr. A.K. Prabhakar, AR for the respondent Per: Mr. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical) The appeal and stay applications are directed against Order-in-Original No. 181/2009 CC (I), JNCH dated 22.2.10 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), JNCH, Nhava Sheva. 2. The appellant M/s. Hydroment (I) Ltd., Kanchipuram are importers of copper/brass products. An intelligence was received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence that they are misdeclaring their products under importation, namely, copper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s were in the shape of ingots/slabs. The statement of Shri M.Venkatasubramani, Director of the appellant firm, was recorded on 11.9.2003 and 01.10.03 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, who confirmed that they had not placed any purchase order with the foreign suppliers and the material was in the form of slab/ingot form and he did not know why the percentage of copper is much higher than 85% which they had declared in the import documents. He also confirmed that they are extracting pure copper in the form of copper cathodes from the imported materials and are not extracting any other metal and they did not undertake any smelting or refining process. As the goods under importation could not be classified as copper/brass dross a show ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in respect of 2 samples which were declared as brass dross the copper content is 51.3% and 62.2% respectively as against the declared percentage of 55%. The ld. counsel further submits that the department has not provided documents sought for by them such as letters addressed to the chemical examiners and copies of the bills of entry as they did not have copies of the same. Further they had sought cross examination of the DRI officer and chemical examiner. The case was decided without hearing them. On the first day of personal hearing, the notice was received late, and they could not appear and when the hearing was fixed again for cross examination on 12.1.10, the counsel for the appellant could not be present as he had to appear before the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mportation. Further, the goods under importation are in lump form and irregular shapes and sizes. In the case of dross, which are mainly imported for extraction of metal, they are usually in the nature of ash or residues and would be in the form of powder or fine particles and the copper content would be much lower than 96/97%. The appellant having been in the business for a long time cannot be said to have no knowledge of the goods under importation. It is also to be noted that the appellant has not placed any purchase orders for the products, especially when the copper content in the product is the main criteria for valuation of the product and the same is much higher than those declared in the import documents. Thus misdeclaration on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
