9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tice was also issued informing the hearing date as today. In spite of these efforts, the appellant has not appeared for final hearing. Therefore, the matter was taken up for disposal after perusing the records as well as hearing the Ld. A.R. 2. Brief facts are that the appellant filed Bill of Entry dt. 15.06.2013 declaring the goods as "Aluminium scrap tense". The goods were supplied by M/s.Zaina Exporters Pte Ltd., Singapore and the unit price was declared as USD 1310.00 (C&F). The total invoice value for the consignment was declared as USD 27617.42 C&F. On examination of the goods, Docks Officers reported that the consignment appeared to contain brass cutting pieces also. Subsequently, the scrap was drawn for testing and sent to laborato ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.1 lakh. They have not challenged the enhancement of value by the Department in the grounds of appeal. 4. Since there was no representation for the appellant, the Bench directed Shri M. Mukilan, Advocate to assist the court with regard to the grounds of appeal put forward by appellant. It was argued by the learned counsel that appellant has filed appeal only against the redemption fine of Rs.5 lakhs and the penalty of Rs.1 lakh imposed by the adjudicating authority. Ld. Counsel argued that though the adjudicating authority has imposed redemption fine, there are no details in the OIO as to the market enquiry conducted by him to ascertain the market price so as to quantify the redemption fine. As per Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the redemption fine imposed cannot be sustained as there is no finding rendered by the adjudicating authority as to the conduct of market survey. On perusal of the impugned order, there is no market survey conducted by the adjudicating authority. However, it has to be noted that the appellant is not contesting the enhancement of value of the goods. Further, there is no evidence put forward by department to conclude that there was any deliberate intention on the part of appellant to import brass scrap. The purchase order and other documents show that the importer had placed the order only for import of Aluminium scrap. Due to the urgent requirement, the appellant sought for release of the goods. This does not indicate that they had placed or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
