TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 183
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellant pointed out that they had ordered for import of Electric Control Round Steel Pipe Polishing Machine has indicated in column 3 below and declared assessable value indicated in column 4 in the table below. However, the actual quantity shipped by the overseas exporter was as the quantity indicated in column 5 in the table below:- Sr. No Description of Machine Quantity Declared in B/E Assessable Value (USD) Declared in B/E Actual Quantity Shipped by Overseas Exporter Value of goods actually received 1. Electric Control Round Steel Pipe Machine having size of 12-63 MM and T:03.-3.0 MM 2 39,000/- 3 39,000/- 2. Electric Control Round Steel Pipe Polishing Machine having size of 51-133 MM and T: 0....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assert that the burden is on revenue to show that the importer had acted dishonestly or with deliberate intention of breaching the law. He also relied on the decision of Tribunal in the case of BANSAL INDUSTRIES VS. CC reported in 2004 (175) ELT 449 wherein, it has been held that if there is mixed up on account of foreign supplier mistake then the importer cannot be charged for misdeclaration and in such cases goods are not liable to confiscation or penalty. 3. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. 4. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the undisputed facts are that the appellant had ordered two pieces each of two different machines and the foreign supplier by mistake and sent three pieces of one machines and on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions and have perused the records and the citations. The importer's contention, as already noted, is that they had not ordered for supply of tin plate waste and it was the supplier who by mistake had loaded the same in the consignment and relied strongly on the supplier's letter 14-5-2001 which is extracted above. They also relied on the statement which is recorded and relied in the show cause notice of the appellant wherein it has been clearly noted that he had not imported the item in question. It is stated that unless it is shown by revenue that misdeclaration has been done consciously and knowingly, only then they can be charged for mis-declaration and goods could be seized. In the present case, the aspect pertaining to appellants' lac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... classification looms large in the discussion of the subject by the adjudicating authority. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the jurisdictional objection raised by learned JDR. 7. The simple issue, which has arisen before me, is whether the appellants misdeclared the goods. The fact that the goods were described in the Bill of Entry by the appellants on the basis of the description of goods in the documents which accompanied the consignment is not in dispute. The only description for purposes of payment of duty is whether the goods are aluminium scrap or not. The party described the goods as 'aluminium scrap' and the Customs Authorities confirmed this on examination and reexamination of the goods. This has been rightly accept....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... instant case in favour of the appellants. No better authority has been cited in favour of the Department. I, therefore, cannot sustain the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The appeal is, therefore, allowed [with consequential reliefs, if any] by setting aside the impugned order. 6. In view of the fact that the Revenue has not shown that appellant had wilfully suppressed the facts and had mis-declared the goods with intention to evade duty and the fact that he had consciously committed the act of mis-declaration, the ratio of above two rulings would apply and in that view of the matter, the order of confiscation and imposition of fine is set aside. Their alternative plea that in the present case, profit margin is wiped ....