Mis-declaration of imported goods – no objection raised to examination – finding that part of consignment was re-rollable scrap not challenged

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1460

Mis-declaration of imported goods – no objection raised to examination – finding that part of consignment was re-rollable scrap not challenged – Order imposing fine and penalty upheld

Case: A.R METALLURGICAL PVT.LTD VS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOM, TUTICORIN.

Citation: 2011(268) E.L.T. 93 (TRI-Chennai)

Issue: - Mis-declaration of imported goods – no objection raised to examination – finding that part of consignment was re-rollable scrap not challenged – Order imposing fine and penalty upheld.

Brief Facts:- Appellant filled two Bills of Entry dated 21-01-2003 for the import of heavy melting scrap. On examination it was found that 11 containers contained heavy melting scrap and 9 containers contained re-rollable scrap which was also in excess of quantity declared by the importer who agreed to pay the duty for the enhanced value of re-rollable scrap and for the actual quantity received which was in excess of the quantity declared.

The total value of the re-rollable scrap was worked out at approximately Rs 13.87 lakhs and this scrap was confiscated under the provision of Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Custom Act, 1962 with an option for redemption of fine of Rs. 3 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 50000 was also imposed.

Appellant is in appeal against the impugned order.

Appellant’s Contention:- Appellant-importer relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in Lloyd Steel Industries VS Commissioner of Custom, Kandla [2007 (207) E.L.T. 431] to support their contention that since, subsequent to the import, the entire quantity of scrap was melted and used in their factory for manufacture of Ingots, the entire scrap was to be treated as heavy melting scrap.

Reasoning of Judgment:- The Tribunal found that the heavy melting scrap and re-rollable scrap are recognized as the two different categories of scrap and no objection was raised to the examination and finding that part of the consignment confirmed to the definition of re-rollable scrap. Therefore confiscation was upheld. Having regard to the value of goods, the Tribunal held that the quantum of fine and penalty also does not require any interference and accordingly upheld the same.

Decision:- Appeal rejected.

Comments

PJ/Case Laws/2011-12/1460

Post a Comment

Query