Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Veer Steel Processors vs Commissioner Of Customs (Imports), ... on 6 September, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Appeal No. C/1462/05 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 1746/2005 dated 22.6.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), JNCH, Nhava Sheva). For approval and signature: Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Shri Raju, Member (Technical) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : Yes CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== M/s Veer Steel Processors Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Nhava Sheva Respondent Appearance: Shri Ravindra Jain, Consultant for Appellant Shri D.K. Sinha, AC (AR) for Respondent CORAM: SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing: 06.09.2016 Date of Decision: 06.09.2016 ORDER NO. Per: M.V. Ravindran
This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 1746/2005 dated 22.6.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), JNCH, Nhava Sheva.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the mis-declaration of the description of goods, which were imported by the appellant. The appellant had declared the consignment as Prime CRGO Silicon Steel while during the examination of the goods, it was noticed that the said goods are Secondary CRGO Sheet Coils. The fact that the importer had received Secondary CRGO Sheet Coils is not contested and not disputed. The adjudicating authority has rejected the transaction value as per the provisions of Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 and re-determined the assessable value. He has recorded that contemporary value of the import of identical or similar goods were not available. Hence taking the recourse of the provisions of Rule 8 of customs Valuation rules, 1988, he determined the value of imported consignment to US $ 1680 PMT as against the transaction value which was more. We are unable to understand the logic of the adjudicating authority to reduce the transaction value of the goods imported by the appellant. In any case, since there was a mis-declaration of description, the goods are liable for confiscation and imposition of penalty. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that they are also contesting the imposition of redemption fine and penalty, which according to him are excessive.
4. In our view, since the appellant had declared the goods being Prime CRGO Silicon Steel and on examination it was found to Secondary CRGO Sheet Coils, benefit of doubt needs to be extended to the appellants case as it may be possible that goods were wrongly sent. Since there is mis-declaration of the description of the goods, we hold that the goods are liable for confiscation. We note that the adjudicating authority permitted the appellant to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.25 lakhs, which in our view is excess considering the facts involved in this case. Accordingly, to meet the ends of justice, we uphold the confiscation, but redemption fine fixed at Rs.25 lakhs is reduced to Rs.10 lakhs. On the same analogy, penalty is also reduced from Rs. 2.5 lakhs to Rs.1 lakh.
5. The appeal is disposed off as indicated herein above.
(Operative potion of order pronounced in Court)
(Raju) (M.V. Ravindran)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
Sinha
3
Appeal No. C/1462/05