9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 361X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edemption fine and penalty recomputed. The invoices, bills of lading and pre-shipment inspection certificates show the goods as heavy melting steel scrap. Since there is no contrary evidence, the benefit of doubt given to the importer and it was held that the importer had no knowledge or reason to believe that the imported consignment included any smuggled goods. Decided partly in favor of importer. - C/623/2008-SM - Final Order No. 21776 / 2017 - Dated:- 22-8-2017 - Shri S. S. Garg, judicial member Mr. Raghavendra B. Hanjer, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Parasivamurthy, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per S. S. Garg The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 11.6.2008 whereby the Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the containers majority of the goods were mild steel rods of prime quality, which were thus imported by declaring them as scrap. Importer stated that they had ordered for only scrap items and further accepted to pay differential duty for entire quantity as segregation and weighment of all containers was difficult. Commissioner held that the goods cannot be classified as scrap and have to be classified under Heading 7214 and applicable duties should be levied. The CIF value of the goods was fixed as USD 341 per MT. It was also held that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration of description and value and that the importer is liable to penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act. Acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o mala fide intention on the part of the appellant to evade duty as they have offered to mutilate the goods before the clearance by the customs authorities. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR for the Revenue submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, the Tribunal vide its order dated 14.9.2007 has remanded the matter for the limited purpose of considering whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 120 of the Customs Act, 1962. He further submitted that the learned Commissioner as per the directions of the Tribunal has revised the amount of fine and penalty proportionately and the Commissioner has also given the benefit to the appellant on the portion of the goods which is foun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
