TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (10) TMI 815
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....07 for clearance of imported goods declared by them as under:- SL. Descripton Quantity (MT) 1. Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS) 340.57 2. Copper Scrap (Birch Grade as per ISRI) 27.25 3. Brass Scrap (Ocean & Erin Grade as per ISRI) 4.38 4. Aluminium Scrap (Tence Grade as per ISRI) 0.95 3. On the basis of intelligence, the customs authorities destuffed the entire consignment from the containers and segregated it and conducted detailed examination of the consignment in the presence of CHA and Appellant No.1. The detailed examination of the goods revealed the following variations from the declaration made by the Appellant No. 1 in the bill of entry: Sl. Description Qty. (MT) as per declaration m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....its declared quantity of 340.57 MT. Hence, if the total quantity is considered including the heavy melting scrap, the net excess is only 2.15 MT. He also submitted that the de-stuffing and segregation of the imported consignment was not done in the presence of importer, and was done in the presence of CHA as is clear from the panchnama. He also relied upon the report of the surveyor, arranged by appellant No. 1 and contended that since the show cause notice does not refer to any test report given by the Government Laboratory, in absence of which the surveyor report as evidentiary value. He referred to para 6 of the surveyor report to contend that the lead scrap was not pure lead scrap and after removal of impurities the lead scrap would be ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....presented during the examination is untenable. We also find that the contention of the appellants that there was excess of only 2.15 MT in the consignment is not tenable as the quantity of excess scrap was in respect of Copper Scrap, Copper Wire Scrap, Brass Scrap and Aluminium Scrap. Hence, the adjustment of such scrap against the heavy melting scrap found less would be illogical as the scraps are of different kinds with different values and rates of duty. We are also not convinced by the contention of the appellants that surveyor report should be accepted as evidence in absence of testing of goods. We find that the authorised representative of the appellants was present at the time of examination of the goods and did not raise any objecti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icees have accepted the fact that excess/mis-declared goods were imported (para 17, para 18 and para 19 of their defence reply dated 14.04.2008 refers) and therefore, the contention on the basis of which cross-examination is sought is devoid of any merit. Consequently, their request for cross-examination is rejected. Similarly, asking for samples and its testing after agreeing with the facts regarding excess goods/mis-declared goods recorded in the panchnama that was drawn in the present of two independent panchas and authorised representative of CHA appointed by the noticee themselves does not serve any purpose not it is acceptable at this stage. Consequently, this plea is also dismissed. The noticee has also sought to rely on a certificat....