Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (9) TMI 241

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... heets/Plates" weighing 551.27 MT and valued at Rs. 2,42,31,965/-. The goods were supplied by M/s. Burwill Resources Ltd., Hong Kong at US $ 1022 per MT. The appellant classified the goods under CTH 7208 and claimed the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002-Customs, dated 1-3-2002 (Sl. No. 190C) which provided for nil basic customs duty on goods (other than seconds and defectives). The consignment was inspected and during the course of inspection, it was noticed that the goods were not as per the order/sales contract made with the foreign supplier. The goods coveted under the bill of entry was examined by the docks staff and it was observed that out of declared 71 bundles of Hot Rolled Non Alloy Steel Sheets, only 6-7 bundles had the metal lab .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re noticed on them. The subject consignment of the plates did not comply with the buyers specifications and the total number of pieces were 202 against the invoiced quantity of 209 pieces. The appellant paid the duty of Rs. 74,25,264/- including the differential duty liability of Rs. 28,70,641/- due to the non-availability of exemption under Notification No. 21/2002 and sought provisional release of the goods which was allowed on execution of bond and bank guarantee. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the appellant proposing to deny the benefit of Notification No. 21/2002, dated 1-3-2002 by treating the goods under importation as defective/seconds and demanding differential duty of Rs. 28,70,641/-. It was also proposed to confiscate the goo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... appellant had also submitted copies of sales invoices in support of the above claim. Inasmuch as there was no suppression of facts or wilful misstatement on the part of the appellant and the appellant came to know about the defective nature of the goods only after its importation in India, penalty under Section 114A is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, he pleads for allowing the appeal. 4. The ld. Addl. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 5.1 We have perused the statement given by the Partner of the appellant firm during the investigation, wherein the appellant had after examination of the goods agreed t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ction provides for confiscation if there is a difference in the value or other material particulars as declared in the bill of entry and as obtaining on physical examination of the goods. In the present case the goods were declared in the bill of entry as prime metal whereas on examination, they were found to be seconds/defective. Therefore the provisions of Section 111(m) are clearly attracted and the confiscation of the goods is upheld. 5.3 Coming to the redemption fine of Rs. 45 lakhs imposed on the appellant under Section 125 of the Customs Act, redemption fine is imposed to wipe out the profit margin which the appellant would have made in case the appellant had been able to clear the goods on the basis of declaration. In the pres .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the part of the importer. The Revenue has not led any evidence to show that any of these elements are present in the present transaction even in the statement recorded under Section 108 it is seen that the appellant had noticed the defective nature of goods only when the goods arrived in Mumbai. He had filed the bill of entry based on the documents supplied by the foreign supplier without realizing that the goods imported was not in conformity with the purchase order placed by him. There is no admission of any suppression or wilful misstatement of facts in the statement given by the Partner of the appellant firm. Therefore, we hold that the charge of collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts is not established. Therefore, t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates