2016 (11) TMI 173

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ity confiscated Amount Fine Penalty 1. C/ 1219/05   C/ 1246/05 M/s. Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC (Export) , Mumbai CC (Export), Mumbai Vs. Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. 91/ CAC/CC/ CMM 22.9.2004 3600.970 M.Tons 445 M.Tons Rs. 6,50,000/- Rs. 3,50,000/- For enhancement  of redemption fine and penalty 2. C/ 1233/05 Hariyana International P. Ltd. vs. CC (Export, Mumbai 90/2004/CA C/CC/ CMM dt. 28.9.2004 1396.56 M.Tons 173 M. Tons Rs. 3,00,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- 3. C/ 1242/04   C/ 1244/05 Shah Brothers Co. Vs. cc (Export) Mumbai CC (Export), Mumbai Vs. Shah Brothers & co. 89/2004/CA C/CC/CMM dt.22.9,2004 2827.080 M. Tons 350 M. Tons Rs. 5,00,000/- Rs. 3,00,000/- For enhancement of redemption ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d remaining 43% were detained and warehoused. The SIIB obtained a report from IIT as per the report, the Chemical Composition was found within specified range. However the physical examination revealed 26.3% of the goods are of non-prime quality. Show cause notice was issued proposing the said 26.3% of the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 for mis-declaration and the same are not eligible for clearance under the DFRC licence. The adjudicating authority confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine and ordered for assessment of goods as per the duty at the rate of 40% + 16% CVD + 4% SAD. The penalties under Section 112 (a) were also imposed. Aggrieved by the order-in-ori....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... mis-declaration. Consequently, the goods were neither liable for confiscation nor the clearance under DFRC license be denied. In support, he placed reliance on the following judgments: (i)      Haji Sattar Haji Peer Mohammed Vs. Collector of Customs   2000 (125) E.L.T. 322 (Cal.) (ii)     Shree Ganesh Agencies Vs. Collector of Customs, Madras  1999 (112) E.L.T. 185 (Tribunal) (iii)    Award Packaging Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-I 1994 (71) E.L.T. 51 (Tribunal) (iv)    Norththern Plastics Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs & Central. Excise 1998 (101) E.L.T. 549 (S.C.) (v)     Commissioner of Customs Vs. Gaurav Enterpris....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appeal, he submits that adjudicating authority confiscated the goods of non-prime quality and imposed the fine and penalty commensurate to the value of defective goods only, whereas the entire goods was liable to be confiscated. Accordingly enhanced the redemption fine and penalty should have been imposed by the adjudicating authority. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that the entire case was made out on the basis that a part quantity of the imported goods were found to be a non-prime quality material. Relying on the IIT report, we find that even the IIT report itself shows that the compositions of the goods are in order. It is only the physical appearance of goods is of non-prime quality. In....