9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 124X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 order for import of brass scrap. The redemption fine and penalty imposed are on the higher side. The redemption imposed is reduced to Rs.2,50,000/- and the penalty imposed is reduced to Rs.20,000/-. The impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing the redemption fine and penalty - Appeal allowed in part. - HON BLE MS. SULEKHA BEEVI. C. S. , MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) Shri M. Mukilan , Advocate, for the Appellant ( Amicus Curie ) Shri Harendra Singh Pal , Authorised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re. On verification for genuineness of the certificate, there was typographical error in the certificate with regard to the radiation levels. Hence the consignment was inspected on post shipment basis for radiation by the DGFT authorized agencies. The radiation level was found to be within the permissible criteria. 3. The appellant requested to waive the show cause notice and for adjudication. The adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original dt. 25.02.2014 held that the goods being misdeclared are liable for confiscation. The value of the goods was enhanced to 21,90,912/- under Section 112 (m) of Customs Act, 1962 (after issuance of a corrigendum to the said OIO). The adjudicating authority imposed redemption fine of Rs.5 lakhs under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s in the aluminium scrap was not deliberate. There is no evidence produced that the appellant had ordered for brass scrap. The appellant had placed order only for Aluminium scrap and the supplier had mixed up the same with brass scrap which was not intended to be imported. 5. Ld. A.R Sri Harendra Singh Pal appeared and argued for the Department. It is submitted that the brass scrap is of more value than the Aluminium scrap. The appellant ought to have declared that the goods contained brass scrap also. Further, the quantity of brass scrap was more than the aluminium scrap. The investigation report shows that the appellant had deliberately imported brass scrap in the guise of aluminium scrap. It is submitted that the impugned order does not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
