9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Charter Engineer the Original Authority confirmed the demand of custom duty of Rs. 4,62,818/- on re-determined value of Rs. 19,90,591/- under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest. Further, the order of the Original Authority was confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order. It is found that the chartered Engineer in his report dated 16.10.2010 has opined that machines do not appear to be reconditioned and appears to have been lifted on as is where is basis and machines were 20-50 years old and expected residual life is more than 8 years and further he has opined that the value of the new machines is approximately Rs. 53,55,000/- and on that basis seizure value has been taken as 16,06,500/- after all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat if items do not conform to description of scrap, mutilation of same may kindly be allowed under Section 24 of Customs Act and undertook to bear the cost of mutilation. The Ld. Asstt. Commissioner of Customs, CFS Ludhiana denied the first check and aggrieved by the denial of the first check the appellant filed appeal before Ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who vide Order-In-Appeal dated 20.08.2010 directed proper officer/Asstt. Commissioner, CFS (Ludhiana to accede to request of the appellant made vide their letter dated 26.07.2010 for first check in terms of provisions of Section 46(1) of Customs Act, 1962. The Department did not file appeal and accepted the said order dated 20.08.2010 of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). 2.2 Instead of complying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... jesh John, who in his report dated 16.10.2010 stated that machines appeared as not reconditioned; the machines appeared to have been lifted on as is where is basis and machines were 20-50 years old, expected residual life of the machine opined more than 8 years. He further submits that as per the opinion of the Chartered Engineer CIF value of new machines opined as Rs. 53,55,000/- and the seizure value of machinery has been taken as Rs. 16,06,500/- but the said valuation is without any basis. He further submits that the appellant prayed for another expert opinion to be taken on the value of the machines but the same was denied. He further submits that the chartered engineer has not disclosed the basis of opining value of impugned goods. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that in the earlier consignment, the Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2011 ordered classification of the goods as referred in para 3 of show cause notice and demanded the custom duty of Rs. 22,12,714/- on the impugned goods and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- each under Section 112 114AA resp. of Customs Act, 1962 for violation of Section 46 of Customs Act and rule 11 of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993 Rule 11 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) Chandigarh, and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal dated 09.05.2011 set aside the Order-in-Original date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 20.08.2010 directed the Asstt. Commissioner, Ludhiana to accept to request of the appellant for first check. It is a fact that department did not challenge that order but at the same time did not implement the order of the Ld. Commissioner and instead issued the impugned show cause notice dated 18.04.2011 alleging mis-declaration of the goods imported vide Bill of Entry 2123393 dated 28.07.2010. After obtaining the report of the Charter Engineer the Original Authority confirmed the demand of custom duty of Rs. 4,62,818/- on re-determined value of Rs. 19,90,591/- under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 along with interest. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lar goods imported from the same supplier as heavy melting scrap of 187.12 MT by 8 containers. It is a fact that the present consignment is also imported from the same seller and also of the same plant purchased by the supplier of the appellant. Those consignment were also seized and the Additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 24.03.2011 confirmed the demand of custom duty of Rs. 22,12,714/- and also imposed penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- under Section 112-114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. 10. Further, it is also a fact that the said decision was set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 09.05.2011 and also directed that impugned goods be released to appellant after effective mutilation under Custom supervision as per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
