2019 (7) TMI 912

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... The goods were cleared under the 'risk management scheme system' and during examination, in addition to the declared goods, 41 nos. new and serviceable 'button drill bits' weighing 1107 kgs was found. The value of the goods was re-determined at Rs. 9,39,865/- and goods were confiscated under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 2,25,000/-. In addition, penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was also imposed under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. The first appellate authority confirmed the order of the original authority after due process. It is seen that there is no dispute on the declared goods and it is the 41 nos. drill bits, which were found to be new and serviceable, that are the subject of this ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Tri.-Mum)]. 3. Learned Authorised Representative placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tata Iron & Steel Co Ltd v. Collector of Central Excise [1995 (75) ELT 3 (SC)] and Relax Safety Industries v. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai [2007 9212) ELT 289 (SC)] holding that '13. The confiscation of the goods was ordered on two counts. The first is that they are consumer goods usable as such and the second is that their value has been grossly under declared. It is not possible to accept the contention that because these goods were supplied free of charge from an exporter from United States of America, because they did not conform to standards of the U.S. Federal Government, they are in fact not earplugs and not....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....gedy, unless they were capable of being so used. Similarly, the manufacturer himself has specifically indicated that the other consignment of respirators was for use in India. It is thus clear that the goods were capable of being used and intended to be put to use as earplugs. In other words, they might have been sub standard in the U.S.A. but were identifiable as earplugs and capable of use as such. It is not as if they were incapable of such use, and they could only be used as scrap. In that case, one would expect them to be so described. On the contrary, they have been described as moulded plastic goods and classification is claimed, not under heading relating to scrap, but as parts of plastic under chapter 34 of the tariff; nor is there....