9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri Arun Kumar Singh (Advocate) for the Appellant (s) Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Addl.Commr.) (A.R.) & Shri Mohd. Altaf (Asstt.Commr.) (AR) for the Revenue ORDER Per Mrs. Archana Wadhwa: Both the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue involved in both of them is identical. However, for the sake of reference to factual aspect, the facts as available in Appeal No.C/70490/2016- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion on the part of the importer. Accordingly on the findings of mis-declaration, the value of the consignment was enhanced to US $ 1269.21 per M.T.; the same were confiscated with an option to the appellant to clear it on payment of Rs. 10.00 Lakhs as redemption fine, goods were allowed to be cleared only after mutilation to avoid use of the same, as such; penalty of Rs. 5.00 Lakhs was imposed on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we also note that the entire case of the Revenue is based upon visual examination of the goods by the Customs officers and there is no expert opinion on record to show that the goods were actually usable as steel sheets/strips. Admittedly the same were damaged/used items, which were considered to be scrap by the foreign exporter. Tribunal in the case of Antartic Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Cu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttons. To the same effect is the Tribunal's decision in the case of Hardik Industrial Corporation v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1996 (81) ELT 172 (Tribunal)] and that of Rama Industries v. Union of India [2016 (339) ELT 230 (Raj.)]. 6. In view of the above, we find no justification for enhancing the value of the goods or to confiscate the same or to impose penalties upon the appellants. Accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
