2024 (12) TMI 1207

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....010, confiscated the goods imported under the Bill of Entry dated 28.07.2003, but as the goods were not available, imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The Additional Commissioner also assessed the imported goods at Rs. 7,02,625/- and confirmed the differential customs duty with penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 [the Customs Act]. 3. It is against this order that an appeal was filed by the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals). 4. The department believed that the imported goods were not eligible for concessional rate of duty applicable to melting scrap and, therefore, 100% physical examination of the goods was conducted in the presence of two independent witnesses. The samples were then subjected to market enq....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-assessed. It is, thus, a matter of fact that, all these facts were known to the Appellants since the filing of BE and receipt of impugned order. However, I have not come across any rebuttal to these facts by the Appellants. The impugned order was passed after giving fair opportunity to the Appellants on the Principles of Natural Justice. The relevance of the end use Certificate produced by the Appellants was also discussed at length in the said order. 6.2 Presently, the Appellants now intended to dig out a case by terming the proceedings, Show Cause Notice, the seizure thereof, and the impugned order to be illegal. However, there is nothing on record put forward by them as to how the proceedings, resulting into issuing of the Show Cause ....