NUTRACARE INTERNATIONAL Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., SURAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is engaged in the manufacture of Sodium Saccharine, Glycerin Potassium Permanganates and Electronic Iron Powder. The unit filed bill of entry No. 2294 dated 20 -10 -2008 for import of 5 MT of Sodium Saccharine from Customs bonded warehouse, JNPT, Nhava Sheva, under Invoice No. 40 dated 15 -10 -2008. The goods were received in the SEZ on 12 -11 -2008. As per the SEZ, Rules, seals of the vehicle were verified and the Cargo was allowed to be unloaded in the unit.

(2.) SUBSEQUENTLY , when the goods were examined in the presence of proprietor of the goods, Sodium Saccharine was found to be 20 -40 Mesh instead of declared as 8 -12 Mesh. The labels on the fiber drums containing Sodium Saccharine also showed the mesh size 20 -40. The unit was supposed to export of Sodium Saccharine of mesh size 20 -40. The goods were seized on 4 -12 -2008 and after completion of proceedings, the impugned order has been passed whereby, the goods have been confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 10 Lakh. Further, a penalty of Rs. 5 Lakhs has also been imposed. In addition, duty demand of Rs. 414/ - on the samples removed without payment of duty, which was already paid by the unit has been appropriated with interest which was also paid.

(3.) HEARD both sides. Goods have been confiscated on the ground that mesh size was mis -declared. Admittedly, the invoice No. 40 dated 15 -10 -2008 was issued by the appellants themselves. In the bill of entry No. 2294 filed by the appellant the description of the goods has been indicated as Sodium Saccharine BP 98 and mesh size has nor been indicated. The mesh size of the Sodium Saccharine was apparently indicated in the invoice No. 40 issued by the Bombay unit of the appellants. The Sodium Saccharine was initially purchased by the Bombay unit on high sea sale basis and placed in public bonded warehouse. The goods in this case have come from the Customs public bonded warehouse at Bombay to the appellants. The Commissioner in the Impugned order has come to the conclusion that there was mis -declaration in view of the following facts :