9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 203X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Shri R. Parthasarthy, Consultant, for the Appellant. Shri M. M. Mathkar, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order per: B.S.V. Murthy, Member (T)]. - The facts leading to the present appeal are briefly explained below: (a) On 16-2-98, three bills of entry were filed by M/s Shree Electromelts Ltd. for clearance of Heavy Melting Scrap and on 18-2-98, the vessel carrying the scrap reached the Port. The vessel along with cargo was seized on the ground of mis-declaration and undervaluation of cargo. Thereafter, the bills of entry filed by M/s. Shree Electronmelts Ltd. were cancelled on the request of the CHA. The vessel and the cargo were provisionally released by the Customs on 22-4-98. In the meanwhile, the appellants filed two bills of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt Officer stated that out turn report will be as per the quantity which is 550 MTs. The second point he has raised is the valuation of the cargo. According to him, the assessable value arrived at by the Department is the result of enhancement of value. The value has been enhanced from $ 120 PMT to $ 185 PMT. He states that no opportunity has been given to them to explain their case before enhancement. 3. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate. As regards the quantity, the chronological events show that the appellants have no case whatsoever. Admittedly, the vessel arrived in the Port on 18-2-98 and on 17-2-98, a request was made by the shipping Agent for conducting draught survey. On 18-2-98, surveyor replied ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on June, 1998 and therefore, if they would want any compensation or relief, it is natural that they would have to deal with the seller who has informed them after 4 months. As far as Customs department is concerned, since Raghav Alloys Ltd. has filed bill of entry for full quantity and it is not the responsibility of the Customs to deliver the cargo and Port Trust had already written clearly that they were not taking any responsibility if there is a shortage, the appellants have to take the consequences. 4. Since they have produced end-use certificate only for 76.385 MTs. out of 550 Mts. the demand for duty has been rightly confirmed by the Revenue and therefore, this liability stands. However, as regards the value, we find that this i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
