TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 172
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order] dated 08.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Port), Customs House, Kolkata. Appeal No. 75072 of 2020 is filed by the Proprietor of the importer firm Shri Rahul Jhajharia. In both appeals, the prayer is to set aside the impugned order. 2. We have heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant had filed 41 bills of entry describing the imported products as "machinery oil" under CTH 27101950 and "machinery lubricating oil" under CTH 27101980. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence [DRI] received intelligence that importers were mis-declaring base oil as machinery oil and also mis-classifying it in order to evade duty. The intelligence further indicated that the average pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... amounting to Rs. 2,32,95,676/- (Rupees Two Crore Thirty Two Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Six Hundred Seventy Six only) arrived at under Section 18 (2) read with Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the re-determined assessable value and order for finalization of all the (41 Nos.) provisionally assessed Bills of Entry accordingly. IV. I give an option to the importer to redeem the goods for home consumption on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakh only) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. V. I impose a penalty of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakh only) on M/s JJR Associates (now RSD Natural Resources India (P) Ltd.) under the provision of Section 112 (a) (ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uced in para 9 of the impugned order does not categorically say that it is base oil and does notor machinery oil. (c) Report of CRCL, New Delhi showed that the samples tested by them may be base oil of various grades. We find that this report also does not say definitely that the samples were of base oil and not machinery oil as declared ; (d) Reports from M/s Barlmer Lawrie & Co. to whom the appellant had supplied base oil in response to their tenders and the test reports confirmed that the goods supplied by the importer made their specifications. 5. In their appeals, the appellants contended that the learned Commissioner had failed to understand that the reports of both CRCL, Kolkata and CRCL, New Delhi are i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orical finding of an expert that the imported goods were NOT machinery oil and then allowing cross examination of such expert(s) by the appellant to prove its case and contest the expert opinion. In this case, while the test reports that have been relied upon as recorded in the impugned order only suggested that the goods "may be base oil" and NOT that "they are base oil". Further, the reports also do not say that the goods are "not machinery oil" as described by the importer. Thus, there is an ambiguity in the test reports. On the other hand, the appellant is said to have sold the goods to M/s Barlmer Lawrie & Co. as "base oil" and that on testing by the buyer, the oil met the parameters of base oil. In this factual matrix, we find that th....