9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 109X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n High Sea Sale basis and has filed a declaration based upon the documents issued by the foreign supplier. It is the appellant only, who made a request for first check as also for mutilation of the goods. Said request of the assessee stand accepted by the Revenue and the goods were allowed to be cleared only after mutilation. In such a scenario, the enhancement of the value, confiscation of the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .) (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-CU[DB] are being adverted to. 2. As per facts on record, the appellant purchased a consignment from original importe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nhanced to US $ 1269.21 per M.T.; the same were confiscated with an option to the appellant to clear it on payment of ₹ 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 ₹ 5.00 Lakhs was imposed on Appellant No.1 and penalty of ₹ 1.00 Lakh was imposed on Appellant No.2. Further penalty of ₹ 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Customs, Kandala [1999 (108) ELT 496 (Tribunal)] has considered an identical question and has obs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on 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. Accordingly the impugned orders are set aside and both the appeals are allowed with consequential r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
