9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in the context set out in the grounds of appeal. The grounds of appeal have not established that respondent had been placed on oral notice and, at his request, for that to suffice as proposal to confiscate the goods and impose penalty. The grounds of appeal have not essayed upon incorrectness of exercise of mind by the adjudicating authority and in the stated circumstances, on the declaration before him, that no offence u/s 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 was evident. It is not their case in the grounds of appeal that every revision of classification and valuation is statutorily to be followed by invoking of section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 and section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. Thus, there is no merit in the appeal which is dismissed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inspection (PMI)', 'sieve test' which resulted in 100% passage through mesh with aperture of one millimetre and report of Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, it was determined that the goods were not 'waste and scrap' but 'alloy steel powder' meriting re-classification thereon and consequent re-valuation. The correctness of the determination of differential duty, as well as denial of eligibility for the exemption from duties as claimed, is not in issue here with the importer having accepted that liability. 3. The impugned order has not resorted to section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 and, impliedly, is not about duty not levied, not paid or short-paid which would be in consequence of clearance of imported goods, despite such deficiency, for ho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exceed the differential duty liability which was below the threshold for recourse to appellate jurisdiction by Revenue as set out in instruction dated 2nd November 2023 issued from file [F no. 390/Misc/30/2023-JC] of Ministry of Finance in Central Board of Indirect Taxes & Customs (CBIC). 5. The goods were re-assessed to duty while stored, under section 49 of Customs Act, 1962, in warehouse pending clearance for home consumption. Re-determination of duty liability was effected without issue of show cause notice on express waiver by the importer at that stage. From the records, we are unable to ascertain any communication of the intention to confiscate goods and impose penalty; all that is seen in the impugned order is '11…&hellip ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... intent, in relation to the goods, at least orally. 7. It has not been held out in the appeal that such intent was communicated to the respondent herein and that the waiver contained in the letter of 26th July 2013 expressed satisfaction that such pre-requisite had been complied with. Therefore, it would appear that the adjudicating authority did not intend to venture in that direction. This is evident from the finding that '13.6 I also find that though the importer had declared the items to be 'waste and scrap of High Speed Steel Dry grindings', yet, the importer had themselves asked for first check appraisement of the goods. There does not appear to be any deliberate attempt to evade duty. In view of this, I find no reason to confiscat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
