9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (11) TMI 173X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mination it appears to be non-prime material cannot be concluded that the goods are of other than prime quality. We further observed that in the DFRC license the tariff description is given as appearing in the tariff heading No. 72082790, the goods imported by the assessee is undisputedly falls in the same tariff heading and the description of goods was also given as hot rolled coils from stock'. We therefore find that there is no mis-declaration in the bill of entry vis-a-vis description given in the DFRC license. So long both the description falls under the same tariff heading number, it cannot be said that two different descriptions were declared under DFRC and in the Bill of Entry. Moreover, the composition is matching but on the physic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 3600.970 M.Tons 445 M.Tons ₹ 6,50,000/- ₹ 3,50,000/- For enhancement of redemption fine and penalty 2. C/ 1233/05 Hariyana International P. Ltd. vs. CC (Export, Mumbai 90/2004/CA C/CC/ CMM dt. 28.9.2004 1396.56 M.Tons 173 M. Tons ₹ 3,00,000/- ₹ 1,00,000/- 3. C/ 1242/04 C/ 1244/05 Shah Brothers Co. Vs. cc (Export) Mumbai CC (Export), Mumbai Vs. Shah Brothers co. 89/2004/CA C/CC/CMM dt.22.9,2004 2827.080 M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion, it was found that about 3% to 8% of the goods had defects. Pending further investigation, 57% of the goods which had no apparent defects were allowed to be cleared and remaining 43% were detained and warehoused. The SIIB obtained a report from IIT as per the report, the Chemical Composition was found within specified range. However the physical examination revealed 26.3% of the goods are of non-prime quality. Show cause notice was issued proposing the said 26.3% of the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration and the same are not eligible for clearance under the DFRC licence. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Irrespective of some minor defects noticed will not alter the product declared and imported by the assessee. Therefore on both the count it cannot be said that there is a mis-declaration. Consequently, the goods were neither liable for confiscation nor the clearance under DFRC license be denied. In support, he placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Haji Sattar Haji Peer Mohammed Vs. Collector of Customs 2000 (125) E.L.T. 322 (Cal.) (ii) Shree Ganesh Agencies Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras 1999 (112) E.L.T. 185 (Tribunal) (iii) Award Packaging Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I 1994 (71) E.L.T. 51 (Tribunal) (iv) Norththern Plastics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs Central. Excise 1998 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under DFRC licenses being different goods. As regard the department's appeal, he submits that adjudicating authority confiscated the goods of non-prime quality and imposed the fine and penalty commensurate to the value of defective goods only, whereas the entire goods was liable to be confiscated. Accordingly enhanced the redemption fine and penalty should have been imposed by the adjudicating authority. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the entire case was made out on the basis that a part quantity of the imported goods were found to be a non-prime quality material. Relying on the IIT report, we find that even the IIT report itself shows that the compositions of the goods are in ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
