NORTHERN INDIA STEEL ROLLING Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above captioned appeals have been preferred against the common Order -in -Original dated 10.9.2002 vide which the Commissioner of Customs has ordered the confiscation of the imported goods with option to get the Same redeemed, determined the value of the goods for assessment purposes and also imposed penalties of various amounts, as detailed therein.

(2.) The appellants No. 1 is a firm of which appellants 2 and 3 are partners, while appellant No. 4 is the authorised representative of the firm. The firm imported fresh iron/steel bars/rods in 12 containers and filed Bill of Entry 587 dated 6.4.2000 at CFS, Ludhiana. But misdeclared the goods as heavy melting scrap (HMS) (quantity 254.870 MTs; and undervalued the same to avail the benefit of customs duty. The officers of DRI acting on specific information visited CFS, Ludhiana and examined all those containers in the presence of Vivek Walia, appellant, authorised representative of the firm and two Chartered Engineers, Shri J.S. Oberoi and Shri Rajesh Shori. On examination, all the containers were found to contain fresh bars and rods of iron and steel of the length varying from 4' to 12' and diameter 10 mm to 28 mm. The officers also noticed that one container was already opened and some pieces of bars and rods were found to have been loaded from that container in a truck. All the goods alongwith the truck were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act. For getting expert opinion, the goods were got examined from the chartered engineers named above, who submitted their reports that the imported goods had been manufactured from prime raw material and not defective or secondary. Shri Vivek Walia, authorised representative of the firm in his statement also disclosed that the goods had been purchased by the firm from M/s. Sara Universal, New Delhi on high sea sale basis. He also admitted that the goods had been found to be new MS rounds of different sizes and length and that there was misdeclaration of the goods in the Bill of Entry, The statement of Jagga Singh, Driver of seized truck was also recorded who stated that he brought the truck inside CFS premises and loaded the bars and rods in the containers on the direction of Sanjay Chaudhary, the appellant. Thereafter, statement of Sanjay Chaudhary, appellant was also recorded who also disclosed that his brother Pradeep Chaudhary is running a CHA firm in the name of M/s. Pooja Travel and Cargo at Ludhiana while he himself is in the business of transport and owned two trucks. He, however, failed to offer any explanation as to why the driver of the seized truck had named him who got the goods from the Container loaded in the truck without any permission of the competent authority. Shri Gursharan Singh, owner of the truck in his statement also denied his knowledge about all the above said facts. Raj Kumar Goyal, appellant failed to appear before the authorities during the investigation inspite of issuance of notices to him.

(3.) On 11.5.2000, the firm requested for provisional release of the goods, to the Commissioner of Customs and the same was allowed on the stipulated terms and conditions. But the firm insisted for the provisional release, as requested vide letter dated 31.5.2000, i.e. delivery of the goods after mutilation and treating the goods as scrap. On completion of the investigation, show cause notices were issued to all the appellants proposing confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalties. The firm in the reply, denied by the allegations made therein by the Department and also questioned the correctness of the reports of the chartered engineers and maintained that they were entitled to the release of the goods after mutilation and denial of this right to them was contrary to the Board's direction dated 16.6.95. They also denied their knowledge that the imported goods were not heavy melting scrap, but fresh iron/steel bars/rods as they had purchased the same on high sea sale basis and bona fide acted on the information regarding the nature of the goods contained in the shipping documents and commercial invoice. No reply to the show cause notice was filed by Vivek Walia and Sanjay Chaudhary, appellants.