TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1072
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the case is that the appellant filed Bill of Entry No. 2904709, dated 07-03-2011 for the clearance of 24.110 M. Tones of 'old white and coloured, cut wiper industrial rags' valued Rs. 14,52,787/- classified under CTH 63109010 as woolen rags. On examination, it was revealed that out of 480 bales, 180 bales are coloured and remaining 300 bales white. It was verified that the goods are not completely pre-mutilated and they are identical form and appear to be new. It was also reported that the goods are not of wool or hosiery but appeared to be of cotton. The Dy. Chief Chemist on examination vide Test Report No. 730, dated 15-03-2011 given following report. (a) The Fabric having off white, red, reddish colour is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before me. 2. Shri J.C. Patel ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that even as per test report of Dy. Chief Chemist, entire goods are not of cotton as contended in the orders of the lower authority. He also submits that on retesting done by the Textile Committee, it could not be ascertained that whether the goods are old and used or new. He submits that as per HSN notes of Chapter 63.10, even small new cutting also considered to be rags, therefore it is not necessary that only old and used rags are classifiable under Chapter 63.10. He submits that reliance on the Board Circular No. 36/2000, dated 08-05-2000 by the original authority was mis-interpreted inasmuch as the contention that garments are only old and used serviceable aft....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-Kolkata) - Ravi International v. CC (Airport), Kolkata 2007 (215) E.L.T. 220 (Tri.-Ahmd.) - Successes Engineering v. CC, Kandla 2008 (222) E.L.T. 453 (Tri.-Chennai) - Hum India Fab. Pvt. Ltd. 3. On the other hand, Shri Senthil Nathan, Dy Commissioner (A.R) reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. 5. The issue to be decided is that whether the goods 'old white and coloured, cut wiper industrial rags' is classified under CTH 63109010 or new rags sorted under CTH 63101090, however there is no difference of rate of duty. In the present case the goods have been tested and in the test report it was found that the goods are not rags and it w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation is called for. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants and reduce the redemption fine to a token amount of Rs. 25,000.00 (Rupees Twenty-five thousand) subject to the condition that the appellants shall take release of the consignment and re-export the same immediately thereafter. The appeal is partly allowed. Successes Engineering v. CC, Kandla 6. We have carefully considered the submissions from both sides. The shipments were made on the basis of documents against payments. The explanation given by M/s. Success Engineering, Hong Kong that there was a downward revision of prices necessitating issue of another invoice is not acceptable for the simple reason that no reliable correspondence culminating ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....negligence if any on their part, does not justify penal action under Section 112 of the Customs Act. Therefore, the appeals by them deserve to be allowed. 8. Thus the appeal of M/s. Success Engineering is partly allowed by reducing the redemption fine from Rs. 20 lakhs to Rs. 7 lakhs (Rupees Seven lakhs only) and penalty from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs (Rupees Two lakhs) and the other two appeals are fully allowed. Hum India Fab. Pvt. Ltd. 5. After considering the submissions, we note that, in the case of Siemens Ltd. (supra), the Apex Court found that the party was not in a position to re-export the goods in question within 3 months granted for the purpose by the adjudicating authority, on account of certain actions of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt for permission to re-export the goods. In the circumstances, the request should have been favourably considered. This is not to say that there was no misdeclaration of goods by the importer. In the bills of entry the importer declared the goods as 100% cotton fabrics but physical examination of the goods revealed to the contra. What happened was misdeclaration, which fact would attract Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. In other words, confiscation of the goods is unquestionable on the facts of this case. The surviving question is whether the redemption fine imposed by the lower authorities is reasonable. As there can be no dispute of the fact that the misdeclaration of the goods by the importer rendered them liable for penalty under Sec....