9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1112X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of show cause notice - Held that:- in the international market, the goods are sold as “Used Iron Material” or “Scrap” without any distinction as HMS or Re-Rollable Scrap and therefore there could be small proportion of re-rollable scrap in HMS. The duty is on transaction value. There is no license violation also. The assessee has filed the Bill of Entry in accordance with the documents and su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent : Shri L. Patra, Authorised Representative ORDER PER : MR. P.M. SALEEM M/s. Lucky Steel Industries, the appellant herein filed Bill of Entry No. 170305 dated 27.11.2006 declaring import of 699.34 MT of Heavy Melting Scrap and 74.81 MT of Re-Rollable scrap, both falling under CTH 72044900. On 100% examination of goods, no discrepancy was found with respect to 74.81MT of Re-Rolla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iterates their contentions in the grounds of appeal, and the learned Authorised Representative for Revenue reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. 3. On careful consideration of the arguments of both sides, and perusal of records, we find that the description of the goods in the Commercial Invoice accompanying the goods are Used Iron Material - 699.340 MT and Re-Rollable Mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee had described as Used Iron Material (HMS) in the Bill of Entry. It was the contention of Revenue that out of 699.340 MT, 81.03MT were not Heavy Melting Scrap but Re-Rollable scrap. As the value of Re-Rollable scrap was US$ 250 per MT, instead of US$ 230 per MT for used iron material, the department demanded differential duty for the said 81.03MT of Re-Rollable scrap. The assessee willingly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of the Appellant that the Bill of Entry should have been assessed on the basis of examination of the goods by Customs Officers and at best, differential duty only be demanded from the assessee. Confiscation of the goods, Redemption fine and penalty are not warranted and would amount to too harsh a measure. 6. In view of the above, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
