9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (2) TMI 128X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T) [Order per: A.K. Srivastava]- Heard both the sides and perused the records. 2. The Additional Commissioner, vide Order-in-Original No. 33/ADC/CUS/02 dated 23.09.2002, ordered that the 19.110 MT of M.S. Rounds to be classified under tariff sub heading No. 7214.20 of the 1st Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and to be assessed at the rate of Rs. 7.67 per Kg. He ordered the confiscation of 27.300 MT of goods under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, in exercise of the powers conferred upon under section 125 ibid, he gave the option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/- besides payment of duty and other charges leviable, if any. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustoms for mutilation of goods on 09.06.2000. 7. On 20.06.2000, the panchnama was prepared and goods were seized. Seizure was made on the basis that the cargo did not appear to be HMP as declared by the appellants, but contains MS round of different dimension, diameter length and were fresh and usable. 19.110 MTs out of 27.300 MTs goods of the above said container appeared to be M.S. Rounds classifiable under heading No. 72.14 of the 1st Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (1 of 1975) attracting higher rate of customs duty as compared to HMS which is a low value item attracting lower rate of duty. 8. The authorities in the case of identically placed importers M/s Sona Castings Ltd., and M/s Bhawani Castings Ltd., duly permi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the request for mutilation was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) was that the request for mutilation was made by the appellants only after the detention of goods as fresh bars and rods instead of HMS as declared. In this connection, it is to be noted that the appellants had placed order for HMS on the supplier/exporter. The invoice under the cover of which goods were supplied also described the goods as HMS and the price was also accordingly charged. Thus, the appellants had no means to know in advance as to what is contained in the container is fresh bars and rods or HMS. The true identity of the goods could have been ascertained only after the containers were opened and inspected. Therefore, the rejection of the request of muti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in this regard. However, no formal written request was made by them to that effect. In that context, the Supreme Court in the case law cited supra observed that the purpose of Section 24 was not to condone or erase the consequences of an offence that had been committed. Whereas in the case before us, it is on record that the appellants, vide their letter dated 25.5.2000, 9.6.2000 and 23.6.2000, had requested the Customs Authorities for granting permission for mutilation of the goods weighing 19.110 MTs out of 107.100 MTs, which were found to be serviceable. Immediately after the import of the impugned goods on 13.4.2000 vide Bill of Entry No. 635, repeated requests were made by the appellants for permission to mutilate the offending good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
