SIRIS AQUA LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals arise from a common Order -in -Original and common Order -in -Appeal and as there were two Bills of Entry, two appeals were filed. In the impugned Order -in -original the imported goods declared under Bill of Entry No. 5127, dated 8 -9 -1994 valued at CIF Rs. 5,15,131/ - were ordered to be confiscated and released on redemption fine of Rs. 1 lac under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalty of Rs. 50,000/ - has also been imposed under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. The goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 1819, dated 28 -3 -1994 were already cleared and were not available for confiscation, hence penalty of Rs. 1,20,000/ - was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

(2.) THE show -cause notice dated 19 -9 -1994 was issued to the appellants contending that they had filed Bill of Entry No. 5127, dated 8 -9 -1994 for clearance of 1000 kgs. of shrimp feed imported from USA under the cover of A.W.B. No. 40426960, dated 9 -8 -1994. They claimed the assessment of the goods imported i.e. shrimp feed falling under Heading 2309.90 of I Schedule of Customs Tariff read with Notification No. 17/93, dated 28 -2 -1993 at nil rate of duty. As per the invoice also the goods were described as shrimp feed. The Bill of Entry was assessed to nil rate of duty based on the documents made available with the Bill of Entry. During the course of examination of the goods, it was found that the packages imported were consisting of 1176 metal sealed tins having the description of the goods as "Brine Shrimp Eggs" (Artemia Cysts). These tins were vacuum packed and marked to have 425 grs. net weight. The literature on tin further describes the hatching conditions for maximum yield as follows : -

(3.) THE appellant contends that the first Bill of Entry No, 1819, dated 28 -3 -1994 was accepted by the department, after due examination and hence the question of mis -declaring or giving incorrect details is not correct. The second Bill of Entry was also done in terms of the first Bill of Entry, which had been accepted by the department. It was contended that the imported goods were technical in nature and the duty of classification was on the department and there was no intent to evade duty or to mis -declare the goods, as they had given all the technical literature and invoices were also available on record. Therefore, they contend that the proceedings for confiscation and penalty should not be taken and such proceedings are required to be dropped. However, they did not contest the classification adopted by the department. However, both the authorities had rejected their plea and confirmed the classification of impugned item under Heading 0511.99 and imposed fine and penalty as stated above.