Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Soni Ispat Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs, (Imports) ... on 7 March, 2008
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO APPEAL NO. C/994/07 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 72/2007 dt, 20.8.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Nhava Sheva For approval and signature: Hon'ble Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) ============================================================
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 Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : of the Order? 4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : authorities? ============================================================= M/s. Soni Ispat Ltd. : Appellant VS Commissioner of Customs, (Imports) Nhava Sheva Respondent Appearance Shri K.D. Mankar, Advocate for Appellant Dr. Y.D. Banga, Authorized Representative (SDR) CORAM: Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Date of decision 07/03/08 ORDER NO.................................................... Per : Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)
This appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 72/2007 dt, 20.8.2007 vide which the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that there was a mis-declaration of the description of the goods imported by the appellants and coming to such conclusion, the adjudicating authority has held that the goods are liable for confiscation under the provisions of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 and after confiscating the same, gave an option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine Rs.7 lakhs imposed penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under the provisions of Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the appellant had purchased this consignment by a High Sea Sale Agreement dt. 23.5.2007 and 24.5.2007 and produced the same before the adjudicating authority. It is the submission that appellant had bonafide belief that on the basis of the documents as given by the original importer goods are as they were invoiced. It is his submission that all documents like Commercial Invoice and the packing list, High Sea Sale agreement, were filed with authorities. It is his submission that on an inspection and examination it was found that the goods were not the same as was imported, and that liability was discharged as has been assessed by the adjudicating authority. It is his submission that since they were unaware that the goods may not be as per the invoice, some leniency may be shown on the imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
3. The Ld. SDR submits that the appellant should have first checked the consignment of goods when they are importing and authenticity of the importer. It is his submission that the appellant should have filed pre-shipment inspection certificate of the consignment, having not done so, they have violated the provisions, which resulted in the confiscation of the goods and hence redemption fine imposed and the penalty imposed is correct and there is no reason to show leniency.
4. Considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records.
5. It is undisputed fact that the consignment which was imported and for which the Bill of Entry was filed was in respect of the consignment which was purchased on High Sea Sale basis The appellant filed all documents along with High Sea Sale agreement, with the authorities. The description given on the invoices by the supplier also would indicate that they were contracting for import of scrap mild steel. The submission of the Ld. Counsel that they were taken away or carried away by the original importer at the time of entering into high sea sale agreement merits consideration. It is also an admitted fact that the appellant sought the pre-shipment inspection certificate from the supplier. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the appellant was mislead by the original importer that the goods are scrap. Though, this misconception may go to help of the appellant on this aspect, the appellant has not brought on record any pre-shipment inspection certificate, which is mandatory for importation of such scrap. To my mind the appellants have erred in not insisting for the pre-shipment inspection certificate, due which for the provisions of section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 are attracted and goods become liable for confiscation. At the same time the imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 7 laksh and imposition of penalty of Rs.1 lakh on the appellant seems to be excessive.
6. In view of the facts and circumstances, to my mind the redemption fine imposed on the appellant is being excessive, is reduced to Rs. 1lakh and the penalty imposed on the appellant is also reduced to Rs.50,000/-. Subject, to above modification the impugned order is upheld. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off.
(M. V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) Sm 3