2020 (3) TMI 771

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....oods were found to be Shredded Scrap. Further based on the contemporaneous imports of the Shredded Scrap, it was found that the same is being assessed @ 325 USD/PMT. As the descriptions and transaction values of the goods were mis-declared, it appeared that the goods were liable for confiscation. As the appellant requested for waiver of show cause notice, the matter was adjudicated vide orders-in-original wherein the Adjudicating Authority has confiscated the imported goods with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine under Section 125 of the Act; demanded differential duty; imposed penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962; and the goods were ordered for assessment at the rate USD 325/PMT after classification under its ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e find that appellants in grounds of appeal submitted that whether it is Shredded Scrap or Heavy Melting Scrap, both were used for melting for manufacturing ingots/ billets therefore, there is no malafide intention. It was also submitted that the differential duty of CVD was available as Cenvat credit therefore, there is no malafide. It was further submitted that he appellant had purchased the said imported goods on high sea sale agreement basis. Therefore, only at the time of de-stuffing the containers, they came to know what were the actual goods stuffed in the container. There were different descriptions of the product but the end use of the goods was the same. It was further submitted that the classification and CTH is same for both the....

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 to evade payment of duty, even though the penalty was reduced to equivalent to duty involved. This is highest amount of penalty which can only be imposed in cases where there is malafide intention or willful mis-declaration to evade payment of duty in terms of Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962. There is no allegation in the present case for evasion of payment of duty and to impose penalty under Section 114A. There is bonafide mistake in the present cases and that too due to mistake by the seller and communication gap and not by the appellant's mistake. 5. Shri Vinod Lukose, learned Superintendent (Authorised Representative) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. We have heard the lea....