TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (10) TMI 1573
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m these goods on payment of fine as mentioned in the table next. iii. The importer is held liable to a penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for his acts and omissions which have rendered the goods imported under the three bills of entry liable to confiscation as per the penalty mentioned in the table next. Bill of entry Revised assessable value (in Rs.) Fine Penalty Number Date 1 8095216 06.01.2017 13,16,667 50,000 15,000 2 8362288 30.01.2017 8,02,105 30,000 10,000 3 8519138 11.02.2017 13,48,892 50,000 15,000 Total iv. The impugned goods after their redemption and payment of duty and fine shall be mutilated so as to render them scrap in such a manner so that they cannot be used as such except for melting in accordance with definition of scrap in Section Note 8(a) of the Customs Tariff." 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant has filed three bills of entry declaring goods as under: Bill of entry Port of import Declared description of the goods Quantity (MT) Assessable value (Rs.) Duty selfassessed (Rs.) Number Date 1 8095216 06.01.2017 OWPL Cold....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding the representation dated 17.04.2017 within 2 weeks by passing speaking order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant. 8. However, despite the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court to decide the representation for provisional release, the goods were ordered for spot adjudication, wherein, on the basis of the reports given by the Chartered Engineers, the classification was changed from 72112390 to 7226110 as CRGO Sheets. The market price as suggested by the Chartered Engineers was accepted by the department wherein the differential duty was demanded by concluding that the goods imported were Secondary & Defective Cold Rolled Grain Oriented Sheets and the goods were ordered to be released only after mutilation to render them scrap and payment of redemption fine and penalty. The said order was challenged before the ld. Commissioner (A) who affirmed the adjudication order, therefore, the appellant is before us. 9. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that reports of the Chartered Engineers for change of classification are not admissible. It is his submissions that the findings of the Chartered Engineers who are not the metallurgical engineer and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ms Appeal No. 10 of 2017, he also relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of BIL Power Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata. 14. He further submitted that in terms of Section 24 of the Customs Act, 1962, there exist no rules for mutilation of goods. To support of this, he relied on the decision of Commissioner of Customs JNCH Nava Sheva Vs. Madhu Sudan Metals reported in 2011 (266) ELT 334 (Bom.) and Union of India Vs. Madanlal Steel Industries Ltd. reported in 2001 (132) ELT 526 (SC) wherein it has been held that in the absence of any regulations under Section 24 of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods cannot be ordered to the mutilated by the department. 15. He further submitted that mutilation of goods in terms of Section 24 cannot be orders since the instruction No. FO/400/71/2014 CUS 14 dated 09.07.2014 relied upon by the Department only restricts the import of material in terms of steel control order dated 12.03.2012 and nowhere directs that any goods imported in contravention of provisions may be subject to mutilation before release of the same to the importer. 16. He further submitted that the adjudicating authority has erred in holding that the appellant has acc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....contain material in the form of CRGO Sheet in coil form. The coils were found to be pressed and stuffed in the shape of stripped bundles and the said scrap was consisting of side trimmings, wires, auto bodies and other waste of steel. If the condition whereas is like that the Chartered Engineer has given opinion only on the basis of visual inspection and no other market enquiry has been conducted and he has not examined the usage of said sheets/strips. Further, I have gone through the classijfication of the Chartered Engineer who examined the priorities on visual examination on steel scrap, therefore, the opinion made by the Chartered Engineer is false and the same cannot be accepted unless until, there is concrete evidence on record." Further, this Tribunal has also observed in the case of the M/s Pashupati Industries INC. (Supra), wherein this Tribunal examined the issue and observed as under: "Admittedly the Mechanical Chartered Engineer is not an expert to value the readymade garments. The report of the Chartered Engineer is merely on the basis of eye-estimation and who had not conducted any analysis with regard to raw material used in manufacture of readymade garments and qu....