9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 736X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orders, the Commissioner of Customs held that the entire consignment under Bill of Entry No. 445667 dated 4.12.2002 and B/E No. 445669 dated 4.12.2002 valued at ₹ 34,53,947.60 and ₹ 64,46,528.62 respectively are liable for confiscation. However, no redemption fine has been imposed as the appellant's request for re-export of the entire goods was accepted subject to payment of penalty of ₹ 6 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. 3. The facts of the case are that the department officials carried out preliminary examination of the imported 441.600 MTs of Non-Alloy Steel Slabs and 879.160 MTs of Non-Alloy Steel Blooms. The goods had been bonded in the appellants' warehouse. After due examination, it was cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner has come to a conclusion that the item is required to be considered as non-alloy steel blooms/slabs-seconds/defective and not being eligible for concessional rate of duty. 5. We have heard Shri S. Murugappan, learned Counsel and Shri A. Jayachandran, Ld. DR for the respondents. 6. Ld. Advocate argued that the second report of M/s. NML was taken on their back and a copy was not supplied to them which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. He, further, submitted that their opinion obtained from M/s. IIT Chennai and M/s. S.G.S. India Pvt. Ltd. should have been examined by the Commissioner and not rejected solely on the ground that the goods were examined by these authorities without involving the department. He c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther, submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of M/s. Tulsyan NEC Ltd., M/s. Bhagzvandas and Company v. CC (Sea) Chennai in WP Nos. 36689 36690 of 2002 and WPMP Nos. 55162 to 55165/2002 dated 24.1.2003 directed the department to allow the appellants to cross-examine the scientist of M/s. NML. He submitted that in a similar situation also the High Court gave a direction to the petitioners to produce evidence available with them. He submitted that it is fundamental principles of natural justice that all the evidence on record is required to be discussed and not rejected as such. 7. Ld. JDR, Shri A. Jayachandran opposed the prayer for remand on several grounds. It is his contention that there was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner with a direction to take other expert opinions also on record and to permit the appellant to cross-examine the experts of M/s. NML. As the direction had not been followed and the order had been repeated, the Tribunal after due consideration considered the expert opinion of IIT Chennai and other metallurgical evidences and gave precedence to the same and allowed the appeal. 10. In the case of M/s. Surana Industries Ltd. (supra), the majority order accepted the evidence of M/s. NML as the said evidence had been accepted by the party and had also made admissions on various other counts. The Tribunal had appreciated the evidence and accepted the NML's report. In the present case, the Commissioner had shut out the report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
