M/S. Kalsi Steels vs C.C., Amritsar

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? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

Appeal No. C/50910/2015-CU[SM]

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.ASR-CUSTM-PRV-APP-249-14-15, dated 16.12.2014 passed by the C.C.E.(Appeals), Chandigarh-I]

M/s. Kalsi Steels Appellant

Vs.

C.C., Amritsar Respondent

Appearance

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Advocate - For Appellant

Mr. M.S. Negi, DR - For Respondent

CORAM: Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial)

Final Order No.__54132/2015__, dated 24.06.2015

Per Mr. S.K. Mohanty :

The brief facts of the case are that the appellant had filed the Bill of Entry No.9668521, dated 25.03.2013 for import clearance of 46.75 MT of heavy melting scrap. During examination, the Customs Department found that the impugned goods imported were purchased on high seas sales basis in U.A.E., which were old, used material and restricted to import under Foreign Trade Policy (FTP). The matter was adjudicated by ld. Additional Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana vide the order dated 11.04.2013, wherein the option to the appellant to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs.3 lakhs. Besides, penalty of Rs.1,78,000/- was also imposed on the appellant. In appeal, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order dated 16.12.2014 has upheld the confirmed adjudicated demand. Hence, the present appeal is filed before the Tribunal.

2. Shri Saurabh Kapoor, ld. advocate for the appellant submits that based on the import documents, the appellant had filed the Bill of Entry describing the subject goods as heavy melting scrap. According to the ld. advocate, the allegation of mis-declaration cannot be levelled against the appellant justifying the confiscation of the impugned goods and imposition of penalty. To support his view, ld. advocate relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Bengal Export Corporation Vs. CC (Port), Kolkata [2012 (278) ELT 332 (Tri.-Kolkata)].

3. On the other hand, Mr. M.S. Negi, ld. Departmental Representative reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order.

4. Heard both sides and perused the records.

5. I find that the appellant had imported the impugned goods based on the description of the goods and other particulars mentioned in the import documents. The Bill of Entry was filed by the appellant describing the goods as heavy melting scrap. Thus, I am of the opinion, the charge of mis-declaration levelled in the present case is unsustainable. However, I find that the appellant has accepted the examination report furnished by the Customs Department that the impugned goods were seamless pipes, which were restricted for import under para 2.17 of FTP. Hence, I am of the view that confiscation of the impugned goods with the option to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and imposition of penalty is proper and justified in the present case. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the present case and especially in view of the fact that there is no mis-declaration by the appellant, I am of the view that option of redemption fine and imposition of penalty can be reduced in the interest of justice. Therefore, the impugned order is modified to the extent of reducing the redemption fine and imposition of personal penalty to Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively.

6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

[Operative portion pronounced in the open court]

(S.K. Mohanty)

Member (Judicial)

SSK

-4-