TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1987 (8) TMI 195
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the imported goods were brass metal and not brass dross and the applicants misdeclared the description and value of the goods, which made the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) and the applicants became liable to penalty under Section112 of the Customs Act, 1962. (ii) The lower authority has held that the imported goods were covered by Serial No. 442 of Appendix-4 Part-A of AM 85 I.T.C. Policy Book as non-ferrous alloy and required a valid import licence for their clearance. As the applicants could not produce an import licence, the import of the goods was unauthorised and the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(2) of the Imports & Exports(Control) Act, 1947 and "....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the basis of 69.1% copper, the value declared would be U.S. $ 0.60 per lb. CIF Bombay based on the value of U.S. $ 0.45 per lb CIF Bombay for 52 to 55% copper. In the sale of brass scrap in the international market it is not determined on the basis of the copper content. It depends upon the type of scrap, how clear it is, the demand and supply, etc. The burden of establishing the charge of under-valuation is on the Department. The Department has not disclosed any evidence to show that any amount other than the CIF value had been remitted for the goods. (iv) The aforesaid discloses a mistake on the part of the Tribunal apparent on the face of the record. Hence the Tribunal may rectify the mistake and hold that there was no justification ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the prayer for rectification of mistake. In the said case it was held that rectification could be made if the mistake was apparent from record and not from something which could be established by a long drawn process of reasoning. 3. Arguing for the respondent Shri Gopinath explained the scope of rectification of mistake and relied on this Tribunal's decision in Metal Extruders (I) Pvt. Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, reported in 1985 (19) E.L.T. 198 (Tribunal). In this decision, it has been held that errors apparent from record, which does not require elaborate arguments, can be rectified under Section 35C(2) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Shri Gopinath has argued that even if an argument goes to the roo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al Collector held the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(f) of the Act as the imported goods, viz. brass, were not mentioned in the import manifest. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the applicants under Section 112 of the Customs Act as they deliberately misdeclared the description and value of the goods. 5. The points in dispute in this case are whether the imported goods are brass or brass dross, whether there is mis-declaration of the description and value of the goods attracting the provisions of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, whether the goods were, inter alia, liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(f) of the Customs Act and whether applicants were liable to penalty under Section 112 of th....