9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 573X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut in impugned order, mis-declared, at least, as far as presence of alloy is concerned but that, notwithstanding the vigorous defence by Learned AR, the claim for ₹ 22,52,521 was below the threshold prescribed for pursuit of litigation by the Central Government in instruction dated 2nd November 2023 of CBIC from file of Judicial Cell to subordinate offices. Learned AR urged us to disregard this ground as one of the exceptions is an aspect of the appeal. Though the order impugned did take note of misdeclaration of alloy steel articles as those of non-alloy steel , the appeal of Revenue refers to descriptional deviation solely to reinstate the upward valuation that had been resorted to by the original authority. Thus, we find that the e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-appeal no. 90/MCH/ADC/GR-IV/2011 dated 8th March 2011] of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone I has erred in absolving the importer of liability to differential duty of ₹ 22,52,521 from recourse to Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 even as the consignments, declared to be valued at ₹ 1,02,89,645 and ₹ 1,06,91,229 respectively, were held as liable to confiscation under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 for containing alloy steel and the grievance of the appellant-importer that the finding of benefit not having accrued to them did not deter the retention, albeit with reduction to, of fine ₹ 20,00,000, in lieu of confiscation of of 122.42 metric tons of alloy steel p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal authority held that the declared value for 979.349 metric tons was not acceptable and, upon re-determination, arrived at differential duty liability of ₹ 22,52,521 besides confiscating the goods with detriment arising therefrom supra. 3. The first appellate authority found it unconscionable to confiscate plates and sheets of non-alloy steel as it had not been convincingly established that the test reports could be relied upon to make the substantial distinction between the two but found the test report distinguishing alloy and non-alloy to suffice for upholding the technical liability to confiscation with fine limited to 122.42 metric tons remaining uncleared and consequent re-determination of penalty. 4. According to Learned C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
