9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 264X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not aware that the product was cold rolled, cannot be accepted - the declaration regarding the nature of the product before Customs becomes a misdeclaration due to which the extended period of limitation can be invoked. Confiscation - Held that:- It is a settled law that the confiscation cannot be made unless the goods are physically available for confiscation. It is seen that no seizure was made. The goods were only detained and later provisionally released - confiscation of only the goods which were detained and provisionally released can only be ordered. Testing of samples - case of appellant-assessee is that testing of samples was not done in respect of all the Bills of Entry, as no material in respect of certain Bills of Entry w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and tested the material. It was found that six consignments out of the imported material were cold rolled stainless steel as against declaration of hot rolled . Cold rolled material attracts anti-dumping duty of US$ 445.65 per MT in terms of Notification No.99/2005 dated 25.11.2005. Cold rolled steel is also more expensive in the market. Consequently, Revenue issued show cause notice alleging evasion of antidumping duty by declaring the cold rolled product as hot rolled. Revenue also alleged undervaluation. The show cause notice issued by the Revenue was confirmed by the Commissioner who rejected the value declared in eight Bills of Entry and revised it upwards. He confiscated the goods found in the warehouse and offered them on imposit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and imposition of anti-dumping duty in respect of eight consignments and also admitted that earlier consignments also may have been undervalued, cannot be used against the appellant-assessee in view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CC, New Delhi vs. Marks Marketing Pvt. Ltd. 2017 (346) ELT 144 (Tri.- Del.). 4. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. 5. From the facts of the case, it is clear that at the time of clearance of the goods from Customs, no samples were drawn and the appellant-assessee had declared the goods as per invoice and the said declaration was accepted. The appellant-assessee has claimed that the goods were stock lot and they were not aware of the cold rolled/hot rolled nature of the goods. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the material imported that the goods were cold rolled. We are in agreement with the assertion made by the appellant-assessee. The charge regarding misdeclaration is based on the testing of samples from the consignments detained in the warehouse. No conclusion regarding misdeclaration can be made in respect of Bills of Entry in respect of which no material was available for the purpose of testing at warehouse. 8. In view of above, the demand of duty and the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation needs to be revised on above terms. 9. Revenue has raised the issue regarding imposition of penalty under Section 114A to be equivalent to the amount of duty evaded and interest. We find that there are no specific findings in the impugned orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
