TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (5) TMI 79
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... melting scrap from the M/s. Excellent Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Khanna, Punjab. The purchase was on High Sea sale basis. M/s. Excellent Enterprises (second appellant) had purchased the consignment from M/s. Sun Metals Casting, LLC, Ajman, Dubai. The consignment had been loaded from Bandar Abbas, UAE on 29-7-04 in terms of the bill of Lading. The sale contract dated 28-8-04 of M/s. Sun Metals Casting, LLC, Ajman, UAE had the following certification "(This consignment does not contain any type of arms, ammunition, mines, shells, cartridges, radio active contaminated or any other explosive material in any form either used or otherwise)." 3. The consignments arrived ICD, Tughlakabad via Navseva port in November 2004. The first appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ffending goods under Section 112(d) of the Customs Act, confiscation of the Heavy Melting Scrap under 119 as materials used for concealing the offending goods and proposed penalty on the two appellants under Section 112 of the Customs Act. It may be noted that neither the notice nor the impugned order specifies the sub-section under which penalties are to be imposed. In adjudication, the charges made in the notice were upheld, goods confiscated and penalties imposed. 6. The present appeals challenge the confiscation of the Heavy Melting Scrap and imposition of penalties on the appellant. The appellant has no objection to the confiscation of the 538 pieces of explosives/fused/discharged missiles. 7. The contention of the importer is th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. The contention of the learned Counsel is that, in importing the consignments due care had been taken and by offering them for 100% examination by Customs and bomb squad officers, the appellants have fully conformed with law and procedure and no action was warranted in regard to the Heavy Melting Scrap or the appellant. 10. It is also being pointed out that similar issues had come up before this Tribunal in the case of Tower Steels (I) Ltd. v. CC, Madurai as reported in 2004 (178) E.L.T. 1004 (Tri.-Cherinai), ITC Global Holding v. CC, Mumbai as reported in 2002 (149) E.L.T. 1144 (Tri.-Mumbai) and Bhrigu Alloys & Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, New Delhi as reported in 2006 (203) E.L.T. 57 (Tri.-Del.) and the Tribunal set aside the confiscatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... apply to imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. 12. The contention of the learned SDR is that there could be no doubting that the 538 pieces are offending and for that reason they have rightly been confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. He would point out that Section 112(a) of the Customs Act makes it clear that any person who rendered imported goods liable to confiscation, rendered himself liable to penalty also. The contention of learned SDR is that the penalty on the importer appellant is justified under Section 112(a) as it had rendered the goods liable to confiscation. 13. The facts as noted above clearly bring home that the first appellant was only importing raw materials for running its fact....