PRABHA INDUSTRIES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), COCHIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed against Order -in -Appeal No. 114/2006 dated 9th May 2006. The appellants imported certain goods and described them as defective rejected non -alloy steel sheet cuttings with tin coating. They claimed classification under 721011 90. The declared value was 170 dollars per MT. They did not submit any licence. On the basis of the value declared they paid Customs duty. However the DRI officials conducted certain investigations. Samples were drawn and the same were tested by the Chemical Examiner. On the basis of the test results, the department came to the conclusion that there was mis -declartion and actually the goods imported were tin plates waste which require licence for their import if the declared value is less than 465 U.S. Dollars per MT. There was also restriction of the import of such item through Cochin port. In fact, in terms of the policy the goods can be imported only through Mumbai, Chennai, Calcutta and not through Cochin as in the present case. Therefore proceedings were initiated against the appellants for various infractions including valuation. The Original Authority held that the goods imported had to be considered as tin plates waste. He classified the same under CTH 721011 90. The assessable value was fixed at Rs. 21,809/ - per MT. On the basis of the value fixed duty of Rs. 4,61,155/ - was demanded in addition to the duty already paid by the appellant. The impugned goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 5 of the FT (T&R Act 1992) and Para 2.7 of the Exim Policy. A redemption fine of Rs. 1,10,000/ - was imposed. Further a penalty of Rs. 40,000/ - was imposed on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Interest under Section 128AB was also demanded. The appellants were aggrieved over the impugned order of the Original Authority. Therefore they approached the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Original Authority. Therefore the appellants have come before this Tribunal for relief.

(2.) SHRI . M. Balagopal, learned advocate, appeared on behalf of the appellants and Shri K. Sabmi Reddy, the learned departmental representative, for the Revenue.

(3.) HEARD both sides. The learned advocate pointed out that the goods imported by them are actually defective rejected non -alloy steel sheet cuttings with tin coating. He said the entire proceedings have been initiated and concluded on the assumption that the imported goods are tin plate waste. He said that actually the goods imported were only as per their declaration and there is absolutely no evidence to hold than the goods are actually tin plate waste. Therefore he said there is no question of misdeclaration and the goods are not liable to be confiscated. Further he said that the value adopted declared by them was actually the invoice value and it is the price at which they had purchased the impugned goods. He said there is no reason for enhancing the value.