TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 945
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mis-declared as prime materials, proposing confiscation thereof and imposition of penalty on the respondents. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent imported what it declared to be prime tin plates/coils vide Bill of Entry No.471564, dated 07.12.2005. But on examination, the same were found to be secondary tin plate sheets/coils, which attracted basic duty at the rate of 20% (as against basic custom duty of 5% leviable on prime tin plates/coils). The case was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No.12/2006, dated 06.02.2006 by Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Delhi. 3. In the wake of detection of the aforesaid mis-declaration, follow up actions were taken and investigations conducted at the premises of the respondent, M/s. Mayank Con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 by M/s. Jagdamba Tin Suppliers and that the same was mis-declared to evade customs duty of Rs. 4,34,725/- and to circumvent port restrictions. The SCN is silent about the total quantity imported i.e. 169.92 MTs imported vide the said three bills of entry. As per the relied upon documents and statements tendered under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962, M/s. Jagdamba Tin Suppliers cannot be held as owner of the seized goods, since the imported goods were already sold as prime tin plates. It is not conclusively proved that wrong invoices were issued for local sale also. During investigation the authenticity of sale bills was not disputed. Further M/s. Mayank Containers Pvt. Ltd. procured goods from other than M/s. Jagdamba Tin Suppliers a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... examination report at the time of import and in respect of the said three Bills of Entry was made only on the examination of 10% of the goods and therefore when only 78.100 MT (out of the total quality) of secondary tin plate sheets/coils were under seizure, having reliance been the examination report is not justified. (v) Respondent had admitted in the statement that the goods sold to M/s. Mayank Containers Pvt. Ltd. were out of the goods imported under the said three Bills of Entry and the Mr. Vipin Mittal, Director of M/s. Mayank Containers has stated that he transferred the said goods to M/s. Saksham Containers Pvt. Ltd., job worker, where the seized goods were found. (vi) The seized goods (78.100 MTs) were imported as pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....suppliers other than the respondent and that it had transferred some materials to M/s. Saksham Containers Pvt. Ltd. without issuing any documents and that it had purchased more than 200 MT tin sheets from the respondent and some of the materials were lying at the premises of the job worker, M/s. Saksham Containers Pvt. Ltd. The adjudicating authority has observed that the total quantity mentioned in the three Bills of Entry was 169.92 MT while Shri Vipin Mittal claimed to have purchase the raw-materials amounting to more than 200 MTs from the respondent. Thus, it could not be said that the entire material lying at the premises of M/s. Saksham Containers Pvt. Ltd. was out of the goods imported under the said three Bills of Entry even if M/s.....