Bhagwati Steels vs Cce, Amritsar

(Arising out of OIA No.ASR-CUSTOM-PRV-APP-294-14-15 and OIA No.ASR-CUSTOM-PRV-APP-293-14-15 dated 23.1.15 passed by the CCE(Appeals), Chandigarh)

Date of Hearing: 09.09.2015

Date of Order: 11.09.2015

For approval & Signature:

Honble Smt.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? No 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Bhagwati Steels Appellant

Vs.

CCE, Amritsar Respondent

Appearance:

Present for the Appellant: Shri Saurab Kapoor, Advocate

Present for the Respondent: Shri M.R.Sharma, DR

Coram: Honble Smt.Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial)

Final Order No.52838-52839/2015

Per: Sulekha Beevi C.S.

The issue involved in both appeals being same, they were heard together and are being disposed by this common order.

2. Brief facts are as under:

2.1 The appellant filed bill of entry for import clearance of heavy melting scarp (HMS) declaring unit price of USD 370 per MTs and availed exemption in terms of notification No.12/2012-Cus dated 17.3.2012. During appraisement, the goods were assessed at USD 400 per MT. The Import Shed Staff reported that consignments contained the metal scrap i.e. copper, brass, stainless steel and aluminum with HMS intact. Segregation of the metal was done and it was found that the goods were misdeclared. The adjudicating authority apart from ordering to pay appropriate customs duty, ordered confiscation of the goods giving option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. In both appeals, the redemption fine Rs.3 lakh each was imposed. Further under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 penalty of Rs.1 lakh (appeal No.C/50912/2015) and penalty of Rs.80,000/- (appeal No.C/50917/2015) was imposed. In appeal, the same was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence the appellant is before the Tribunal.

3. At the time of hearing, learned Counsel appearing for appellant submitted that he is not disputing valuation or classification and the challenge in these appeals is confined to redemption fine and penalty imposed. He submitted that all the documents for import were in order. The quantity of metal after segregation is negligible and that these metals were intact as scrap with HMS. The appellant has already discharged the duty liability.

4. Learned DR defended the impugned order and stated that redemption fine and penalty imposed is reasonable.

5. After hearing the submissions made by both side and perusal of the records, the contention of learned Counsel that the import of the goods contained only negligible copper scrap, brass scrap, stainless steel scrap and aluminum scrap is correct. These scrap were attached/intact with HMS. In such circumstances, redemption fine and penalty imposed, in my view is on the higher side. Redemption fine if reduced to Rs.1 lakh (one lakh) and penalty if reduced to Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) in both appeals would meet the end of justice.. No other argument was put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

6. In the result, the impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing redemption fine to Rs.1 lakh (one lakh) and penalty to Rs.25,000/- (twenty five thousand) in both appeals. The appeals are allowed in part in the above terms.

(pronounced in the open court on 11.09.2015)

(Sulekha Beevi C.S.)

Member (Judicial)

mk

3