VAZIR POLYMERS LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS group of appeals has been heard together since common points are involved and they are filed by the same appellants. In all these matters, the controversy centres around the liability of the appellants in respect of the imports of the material made as "plastic waste and scrap", which according to the Revenue did not fall under that category. The appellants have challenged the imposition of duty, redemption fine and penalty in these appeals. Appeals No. C/415 and 416/01:

(2.) IN Appeals No. C/415 and C/416/01, show cause notice was issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the appellants alleging that the importer had mis -declared the cargo for which Bill of Entry No. 375, dated 15 -6 -1999 was filed. The cargo was declared as plastic scrap (polyethylene) under sub -heading 3915.90, whereas the useable and non -useable rolls found during the examination should have been shown separately under Heading 3921. It was also alleged that the value declared for assessment could not be taken as the transaction value. The value of seized useable/serviceable rolls was to be worked out by taking platt's price of LDPE (raw material) plus manufacturing cost of rolls, etc., or their value, i.e. cost of raw material and manufacturing cost and profit whichever was deemed fit by the adjudicating authority. It was also alleged that the importer was not entitled to claim the benefit of Notification No. 133/94, dated 22 -6 -1994 as the goods were found mis -declared and the importer was not granted the necessary licence for the import of these goods and that they were not as per the conditions imposed by the Development Commissioner in the Letter of Approval and as per guidelines contained in Circular dated 14 -5 -1997. It was also alleged that the Directors were liable to penal action as they did not fulfil the conditions of the Letter of Approval issued by the Development Commissioner, KFTZ, Gandhidham. The appellants were called upon to show cause why the quantity of useable rolls of 25272 Kgs., and 37908 Kgs. of scrap compressed in bales which was found concealing the mis -declared goods which was more than 3" x 3" in size, should not be confiscated under Section 111(d) and Section 111(m) of the said Act. They were also called upon to show cause why the classification of the goods for useable rolls should not be revised from sub -heading 3915.90 to sub -heading 3921.90 and why the value thereof should not be enhanced as stated in the notice. As the goods were found to be mis -declared and not in conformity with the conditions, they were called upon to show cause why duty should not be levied at the enhanced value along with interest and why penalty should not be imposed as indicated in the show cause notice.

(3.) THE appellants have challenged the order dated 24 -12 -2001 made by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, confiscating the goods weighing 67.944 MT of the enhanced value of Rs. 11,43,250/ - imported vide Bill of Entry No. 791, dated 13 -8 -1999 giving an option to the importer to redeem the goods on payment of fine of Rs. two lacs, classifying the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 39.21, valuing the goods under detention at Rs. 11,43,250/ -, denying the benefit of notification dated 22 -6 -1994, and imposing penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - on the appellant.