2017 (9) TMI 1202

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....) Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A. Cletus, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appellants imported 293.110 MTs of MS Re-rolling scrap consisting of used rails vide Bill of Entry dated 5.4.2006. The appellant declared the imported goods as "MS Rolling Material consisting of used rails" classified as CTH 72. On examination, the goods were found to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tion and is contesting only the imposition of redemption fine and penalty. He argued that the appellant had classified the goods under CTH 72 as per Circular No. 1/2005-Cus. dated 11.1.2005 issued by the Board. Later, the Board issued another Circular No. 8/2006-Cus. dated 17.1.2006 which clarified that the used steel rails to be classified under CTH 7302. That the show cause notice has been issue....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d by the Hon'ble High Court quashing the said Circular. That in view of such conflicting judicial position as well as the Circular, the appellant cannot be said to have mis-declared the goods. He pleaded that the redemption fine and penalty may be set aside. 3.  Against this, the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that as per Indian Standard Code for....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Circular was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras whereby the said Circular was quashed. These being the facts, we find merit in the contention put forward by the learned counsel that the appellant has not acted dishonestly and contumaciously or with the deliberate or distinct object of breaching the law. 6.  In view thereof, we find that the confiscation of the goods is ....