M/S. Classic Metal Corporation vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ...

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 23/2004 dt. 10.05.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), JNCH, Nhava Sheva

For approval and signature: Honble Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical) Honble Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

============================================================

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 : No 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. Classic Metal Corporation : Appellant

VS

Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva : Respondent

Appearance

Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for Appellant

Shri Chatru Singh, Assistant Commissioner (A.R) for respondent

CORAM:

Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical) Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial)

Date of hearing : 5/8/2015 Date of decision: 5/8/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : Ramesh Nair

The appeal is directed against the Order-in-Original No. 23/2004 dt. 10.5.2004 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Import) JNCH, Sheva wherein Ld. Commissioner confiscated the goods valued at Rs.87,32,577/- and allowed the redemption of the goods on payment of a fine of Rs.17,50,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs and fifty thousand only). The assessment was ordered at the rate of US$ 2380/- PMT and recovered the extra duty.

2. The fact of the case is that the appellant have imported the goods declaring Nickel Silver Scrap. On investigation, it was found that the goods have been mis-declared and undervalued and it was also found that the weight of the consignment is in excess by about 1670 kgs. On the above discrepancies the appellant were issued a show cause notice and in the adjudication the charges made in the show cause notice have been confirmed. Aggrieved by the impugned order the appellant is before us.

3. Shri Anil Balani, Ld. Counsel for the appellant, at the outset submit that with the instruction of his client the appellant do not contest the enhancement of the value and the assessment of the Bills of Entry with the extra duty demand. The appellant only contest for reduction of redemption fine of Rs.17.5 lakhs imposed by the adjudicating authority. His main submission is that the adjudicating authority while imposing the redemption fine taken into consideration, detention and demurrage amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rupees six lakhs only). It is his submission that the detention and demurrage charges is approximately Rs.10.64 lakhs at the time of clearance. He further submit that the appellant have admittedly paid the duty as assessed by the assessing officer on the enhanced value and quantity. He submits that in view of the heavy demurrage and detention the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority is excessive, which requires to be reduced.

4. On the other hand, Shri Chatru Singh, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that this is a clear case of mis-declaration of the goods, wrong classification and undervaluation. Therefore the intention of the appellant to evade duty has been proved. Therefore the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority is just and proper which does not require any interference.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the adjudicating authority while imposing the redemption fine of Rs.17.5 lakhs has considered the demurrage and detention charges worth Rs.6 lakhs. However from the record it is observed that the appellant has suffered the demurrage and detention charges of more than Rs.10 lakhs. Considering this position as well as taking into account overall facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority is on higher side, which deserves to be reduced. We, therefore, reduce the redemption fine from Rs.17.5 lakhs to Rs.10 lakhs. However, the assessment order on the enhanced value and also on the quantity ordered by the adjudicating authority is maintained. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.

(Pronounced in court)

(P.S.Pruthi) Member (Technical)

(Ramesh Nair) Member (Judicial)

SM.

4 Appeal No. C/753/2004