9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 501X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers were misdeclared by the importer as heavy melting scrap to evade the payment of Customs duty and confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. The consignments were accordingly weighed, examined and seized in terms of Panchnamas drawn on the spot and further investigation started into the matter. 2. In the course of this investigation, the statement of Shri Utsav Kumar, employee of the petitioner-company was also recorded. A market inquiry was also in the course of the investigation conducted from manufacturers of similar types of nails who opined that the samples shown to them and drawn from the imported consignment were similar to the nails manufactured by the local manufacturer. The statement of Petitioner No. 2, Shri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms Act, 1962. 3. He accordingly directed classification of imported goods under Tariff Heading 7317.00 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975, confiscation of the seized goods under Section 111(m) of the Act but permitted redemption of the said goods on payment of a redemption fine of ₹ 12 lacs under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. He also imposed a penalty of ₹ 6 lacs upon the importer apart from a penalty of ₹ 1 lac from Petitioner No. 2 for contravention of the said provisions. 4. Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, who has by the order impugned in this appeal allowed the same in part and remitted the matter back to the Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured by the supplier available in print on the boxes, correctly came to the conclusion that the consignment did not contain heavy melting scrap but good quality factory fresh nails. The description of the goods covered by the bills of entry as heavy melting scrap was, therefore, clearly wrong, rendering the consignment liable to confiscation. Inasmuch as the authorities below have directed the confiscation, and imposed redemption fine to be calculated afresh in terms of the impugned remand order, they have committed no mistake to warrant interference from this Court. The appeal does not, in any event, raise a substantial question of law for our determination. The same, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. - - TaxTMI - TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
