Imported goods reclassified, escape confiscation. Weight discrepancies incur redemption fine. Reduced fines pave way for release.

The tribunal found the imported goods, initially declared as re-rollable scrap but used as heavy melting scrap, not liable for confiscation. However, due to discrepancies in weight, the goods were subject to a redemption fine and penalty. The tribunal reduced the fine to Rs. 40,000 and the penalty to Rs. 15,000, allowing for the release of the goods upon payment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant for importing goods declared as heavy melting scrap but found to be re-rollable scrap with discrepancies in weight.

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported a consignment declared as heavy melting scrap but was found to be re-rollable scrap with discrepancies in weight. The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine and penalty, which was challenged by the appellant. The Ld. Commissioner (A) upheld the order but reduced the fine and penalty. The appellant contended that the goods were used as heavy melting scrap as per their order and certificate of origin, and any discrepancies were due to the supplier's mistake, not intentional mis-declaration.

2. The appellant's counsel argued that the goods were used as heavy melting scrap as intended, and any discrepancies in weight were not intentional. The appellant had ordered heavy melting scrap, supported by the certificate of origin. The appellant's intention was not to mis-declare the quantity/weight, attributing the discrepancies to the supplier's error during examination.

3. The Ld. AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order, supporting the imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the appellant for the discrepancies in weight and declaration of the imported goods.

4. After hearing both parties and considering their submissions, the tribunal examined the case. The tribunal found that although the goods were initially declared as re-rollable scrap, the appellant had ordered heavy melting scrap and used the goods accordingly. No contrary evidence was presented to challenge this usage, leading to the conclusion that the goods were not liable for confiscation based on this ground.

5. However, the tribunal upheld the charge of mis-declaration of weight due to the excess weight found during examination. Consequently, the goods were deemed liable for confiscation. Since the goods were not restricted, they could be released upon payment of redemption fine and penalty. The tribunal deemed the initially imposed fine and penalty as excessive, reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 40,000 and penalty to Rs. 15,000. The appeal was disposed of based on these observations.

---