TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (2) TMI 128
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of goods under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, in exercise of the powers conferred upon under section 125 ibid, he gave the option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 25,000/- besides payment of duty and other charges leviable, if any. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- on the appellants under Section 112(a) ibid. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the above order. Hence this appeal. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants, a trader importers, imported Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS) vide Bill of Entry No. 635 dated 13.04.2000, consisting of five containers which weighed 107.100 MT. The Bill of Entry mentioned the goods as HMS classifiab....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....peared to be M.S. Rounds classifiable under heading No. 72.14 of the 1st Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (1 of 1975) attracting higher rate of customs duty as compared to HMS which is a low value item attracting lower rate of duty. 8. The authorities in the case of identically placed importers M/s Sona Castings Ltd., and M/s Bhawani Castings Ltd., duly permitted clearance after mutilation of material containing serviceable material. Similarly, in the case of M/s Dutt Multi Metals Ltd., the High Court in the C.W.P. No. 7717 of 2002 permitted the said party to lift the material after mutilation vide interim order dated 16.6.2002. All the aforesaid importers were also importing HMS for the purpose of melting to manufact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....voice under the cover of which goods were supplied also described the goods as HMS and the price was also accordingly charged. Thus, the appellants had no means to know in advance as to what is contained in the container is fresh bars and rods or HMS. The true identity of the goods could have been ascertained only after the containers were opened and inspected. Therefore, the rejection of the request of mutilation by the Commissioner (Appeals) on this ground is also not correct. 12. The legislation has created specific provision under Section 24 of the Customs Act, 1962 for mutilation of imported goods. The appellants specifically requested for mutilation of goods, so as to satisfy the Customs officials about the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case before us, it is on record that the appellants, vide their letter dated 25.5.2000, 9.6.2000 and 23.6.2000, had requested the Customs Authorities for granting permission for mutilation of the goods weighing 19.110 MTs out of 107.100 MTs, which were found to be serviceable. Immediately after the import of the impugned goods on 13.4.2000 vide Bill of Entry No. 635, repeated requests were made by the appellants for permission to mutilate the offending goods before their release. This establishes their bonafide and, therefore, the above observations of the Supreme Court cannot be blindly applied to the present case. 15. It is also erroneous on the part of the lower authorities to presume that the appellants imported fresh mat....