2024 (5) TMI 573

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....04.2009 and no. 890395/15.04.2009 respectively, is the cavil of Committee of Commissioners, in appeal of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai, that order [order-in-appeal no. 90/MCH/ADC/GR-IV/2011 dated 8th March 2011] of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone - I has erred in absolving the importer of liability to differential duty of Rs. 22,52,521 from recourse to Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 even as the consignments, declared to be valued at Rs. 1,02,89,645 and Rs. 1,06,91,229 respectively, were held as liable to confiscation under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 for containing 'alloy steel' and the grievance of the appellant-importer that the finding of benefit not having accru....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....489.6745 metric tons of 'plates and sheets' of 'non-alloy' steel classifiable against heading 7225 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In consequence, the original authority held that the declared value for 979.349 metric tons was not acceptable and, upon re-determination, arrived at differential duty liability of Rs. 22,52,521 besides confiscating the goods with detriment arising therefrom supra. 3. The first appellate authority found it unconscionable to confiscate 'plates and sheets' of 'non-alloy' steel as it had not been convincingly established that the test reports could be relied upon to make the substantial distinction between the two but found the test report distinguishing 'alloy' and 'non-alloy' to suffice for upho....