Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Soni Ispat Ltd vs Cc, Indore on 20 March, 2013
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
DIVISION BENCH
Court No.2
Customs Appeal No.C/661/2008
(Arising out of OIO No.01/Commr/Customs/Ind/2008 dated 18.7.2008 passed by the CCE & C, Indore)
Date of hearing/Decision: 20.03.2013
M/s.Soni Ispat Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CC, Indore Respondent
Present for the Appellant: Shri S.Vasudevan, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri V.P.Batra, DR Coram: Honble Mr.D.N.Panda, Judicial Member Honble Mr.Manmohan Singh, Technical Member FINAL ORDER NO. 56132/2013 PER: D.N.PANDA The appellant imported goods declaring to be Miscellaneous Nickel Copper Scrap Depth with code mark ISRI classifying such goods under SH-75030010 instead of declaring the same to fall to under SH- 81110220. Revenue proceeded to adjudicate the matter levying duty and redemption fine of Rs.7.00 lakhs as well as penalty of Rs.10.00 lakhs on the appellant holding that 41.86 MTs of Metals imported was composed of Nickel 11%, Copper 18% and Manganese 67% i.e. waste an scrap of Manganese base alloy valued at Rs.65,55,640/- which was classifiable under SH-81110020. It was found that the goods were misdeclared as to description and value.
2. Ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that there was no mis-declaration of the goods and according to the Exim Policy, the goods were imported. Also there was no mis-declaration of the value. Therefore without any cogent evidence led by Revenue to prove mis-declaration, there was no warranting circumstance for levy of redemption of fine and penalty.
3. Ld.DR on the other hand supported the adjudication on the ground that there is no legal infirmity in the order most particularly when it was found that the goods were restricted items and should not have been imported without proper compliance with the law. Therefore, interference to adjudication may not be made.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. The goods in question were declared to be as Cu-Ni Scrap Solids for Melting purpose. The value of the goods was declared to be Rs.65,55,640/-. Such declaration of value remained undisputed while the goods imported were found to be restricted goods by customs. NIDB data was searched by customs to find out composition of the metal contents and those were found to be Cu-Ni Scrap Solids for Melting purpose classifiable under chapter sub heading No.81111020. Revenue proceeded to ascertain chemistry of the goods and opined as under:-
(i) The importer was very much aware with the Chemistry of the subject import goods before placement of the order to M/s.Cronimet.
(ii) The Chemistry of the subject import goods was given to M/s.Cronimet by them only and accordingly M/s.Cronimet placed Sales Offer of the subject goods.
(iii) The offer was accepted as such by the importer and opened Letter of Credit bearing No.302010US2500042 dt.15.03.2007 for an amount of USD 149600 as the per condition of the said Sales Confirmation of M/s.Cronimet.
(iv) They knowingfully mis-declared the subject import goods declaring it as Miscellaneous Nickel Copper Scrap Depth as per ISRI Code Word and claimed its classification under Chapter sub heading No.75030010 instead of Chapter sub heading 811110020, which fails under the Restricted category.
(v) Inspite of knowing the Chemistry of the subject import goods they attempted to get it cleared, contrary to the restriction imposed under the Foreign Trade Policy.
6. Ld. Adjudicating Authority was of clear view as stated in para 8.2 of the order that there was mis-declaration of description of the goods made in violation of Exim policy and the goods were imported without licence. In para 20 of the adjudication order, ld. Ld. Adjudicating Authority examined the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy and finally opined that violation of Foreign Trade Policy being made by Appellant and the goods were made liable for confiscation as restricted.
7. On the aforesaid situation we do not find any reason to disagree with the adjudicating authority against his finding when his application of mind is reflected in para 19 of the order highlighting licensing requirement in respect of the goods imported which was not followed by Appellant. This called for imposition of redemption fine. Accordingly we uphold imposition of redemption fine of Rs.7 lakh imposed by the adjudicating authority. However, on an overall observation that penalty imposed was disproportion that is directed to be reduced to Rs.7 lakh (Seven Lakhs only) which may not cause prejudice to the interest of Revenue.
8. Appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Dictated & pronounced in the open court) (D.N.PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANMOHAN SINGH) TECHNICAL MEMBER mk ??
??
??
??
5 7