Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Nga Steels Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 16 October, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.C/364/2005
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.C.Cus No.387/2005 dated 13.05.2005 passed by the Commissioner of (Appeals), Chennai ]
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms.JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? :
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
M/s.NGA Steels Pvt. Ltd.
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri K. Balasubramanian, Adv. Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR For the Appellants For the Respondent CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 16.10.2009 Date of decision : 16.10.2009 Final Order No.____________ Vide the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld confiscation of re-rollable scrap imported by the appellants herein on the ground that the importers did not produce Pre-shipment Inspection Certificate but reduced the fine in lieu of confiscation to Rs.75,000/- and the penalty to Rs.50,000/-. Hence this appeal by the importers.
2. I have heard both sides. There is no dispute that the consignment was inspected and not found to contain any serviceable articles or arms and ammunitions. It is only for the reason that the assessees did not produce a Pre-shipment Inspection Certificate that the consignment has been confiscated. The Honble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Commissioner of Customs Vs Senor Metals Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (236) E.L.T.445 (Guj.)] has held that non-compliance with the fulfilment of conditions such as production of Pre-shipment Inspection Certificate may entail an importer to undergo 100% inspection of entire consignment and that would not tantamount to improper import of goods as per the Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. In this case, the goods were examined and not found to contain any prohibited articles. The ratio of the Honble High Courts decision cited supra is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and following the ratio thereof, I set aside the confiscation and penalty and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT ksr 21-10-2009 ??
??
??
??
2