AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1014
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ritius as per para 2.32.1 of the Handbook of Procedure and hence the certificate was not eligible to be used for the clearance of the said goods into India. After due process the Ld. Original Authority imposed a penalty of Rs.1,65,000/- on the appellant under sec. 112(a) for having rendered the goods liable for confiscation apart from other action against the importer etc. In appeal, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the penalty imposed. Hence the present appeal. 3. The learned Advocate Shri A. Mudimannan appeared for the appellant and Ld. Authorized Representative Smt. Anandalakshmi Ganeshram, appeared for the respondent. 3.1 The Ld. Advocate Shri A. Mudimannan submitted on behalf of the appellant that the appellant is a regular importer of re-rollable scrap and billets falling under Chapter 72:00 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The present dispute relates to the import of metal scrap from Mauritius. The branch offices of inspection agencies which are registered under Appendix 28 of the Hand Book of Procedures were also to be included subject to the conditions that the Branch office has the requisite inspection facility to issue such a certificate. Hence furnishing the PSI cert....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order is grave in as much as it is stated that the pre-shipment inspection Certificate submitted by one M/s Worldwide Inspection Services Pvt Ltd, New Delhi, which is not an authorised agency at Mauritius by DGFT, appeared to be non- genuine and appeared to have been fabricated for the purpose of clearance of goods in India. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced below; "1. The certificates have been issued by M/s. Worldwide Inspection Services P Ltd., No.2447, Basement Floor, Judson Lines, Kingsway Camp, Delhi - 110 009. According to the certificates, the inspection was carried out at Port Louis, Mauritius on 24.10.2013 and 16.11.2013. The inspection carried out on 24.10.2013 pertains to Bills of Entry Nos.3978997 / 03.12.2013 and 3979004 / 03.12.2013. Both these inspections were varied out by one J.T. Mathews whose address is C1, One Highfield, 5 Bellingham Road, Centurion 0157, South Africa. In both these certificates, it is shown that the duration of inspection was 11 hrs and 18 hrs. respectively. It is impossible for one man shri J.T. Mathews to carry out 2 inspections of 11 + 18 = 29 hours of inspection in a day consisting of 24 hours. 2. Who is this J.T. Mathe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r issuing such certificates and their accreditation with DGFT should be recommended for cancellation. There was no approved testing agency in Mauritius. If they had brought their cargo without a PSIC instead of bringing it with a fabricated one and got their cargo inspected in India, the appellant-1 might not have faced this kind of situation. In this case, it is very clear that the appellant-1 has produced an Inspection Certificate which is non-genuine and is trying to mislead the Department. Therefore the Order-in-Original is legal and correct. In fact, I would rate it as very mild." ( emphasis added ) 5. The issue has not been adequately responded to by the appellant in their current Appeal. The relevant portion is reproduced below; "ALLEGATION IN PARA 3 OF SCN; THAT PSI CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY M/S.WORLDWIDE INSPECTION SERVICES P. LTD IS FABRICATED: Without any basis or evidence or proof, the allegations have been leveled. When there is no authorized agency available at Mauritius by DGFT, the sincerity of the Appellant in approaching a recognized/approved agency of another country by DGFT cannot be doubted or suspected. In fact, the Dept. could have appreciated the gestur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....est before customs for Post Inspection and after the approval of customs and the presence of the customs official, the post inspection by Local DGFT approved agency M/s. Valueguru Chartered Engineers & Valuers Pvt. Ltd and their certificate dated 04.02.2014 PSI certificate issued by M/S. ValueGuru Chartered Engineers & Valuers wherein, it has been specifically stated that "the imported consignment does not contain any type of arms. ammunition, mines, shells, cartridges or any other explosive material in any form, either used or otherwise" Therefore, every pre-caution was taken by the Appellant and the High seas sales Purchaser and all the procedures were strictly followed from the beginning, ie, from the loading point and as there is no illegality or irregularity committed at any point of time." I find that the plea made by the appellant is flawed because even if the import is finally found not to have any arms, ammunition, mines, shells, cartridges or any other explosive material in any form either used or otherwise, (also referred to as 'war material'), but during the process of which illegal means were deployed, would not cure the illegality in the import. It may have a b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....03,81,890.31 to Rs 01,34,86,175/- by the Original Authority was not a subject matter of the SCN and is hence beyond its scope. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has not considered their plea in this regard. I find that a notice was issue to the appellant in his capacity as the High Sea Seller who procured the defective PSIC. Valuation of the goods is a part of assessment and payment of duty, which does not concern the appellant, who is not the importer. This averment of the appellant is all the more surprising in as much as in his submissions he has stated that the Commissioner of Customs, (Appeal), Chennai has allowed the appeal of the importer vide Order in Appeal dated. 04.04.2013 for the same issue! The value of the goods as determined therein has hence crystalised. Hence there is no infirmity in the Commissioner Appeals not taking up the issue of valuation in an appeal filed by the High Sea Seller, and the appeal on this ground fails. 9. Thirdly the appellant has stated that since section 112 refers to a 'person', hence abetment can only be done by an individual and not by a company. Hence a penalty is not warranted. I find that the word 'person' has not been defined under the C....