TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 3/AT/C/CUS/2025 dated 3rd June 2025] of Commissioner of Customs, Nagpur ordered re-description in the respective bills of entry though the rate of duty remained the same, viz., corresponding to tariff item 7220 2029 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 besides re-quantifying the goods imported by M/s Al Udai Exim LLP as 1184114 kg instead of 1052090 kg and of M/s Ramabors Exim LLP as 50775 kg instead of 44773 kg. The value was, and not just by revision of quantity, enhanced from Rs.3,65,99,133 to Rs.12,40,72,260, on bills of M/s Udai Exim LLP and from Rs. 31,34,549 to Rs.42,32,929 in the bill filed by M/s Ramabors Exim LLP, under rule 9 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 before confiscating the goods absolutely. Penalties under section 112 and section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 were imposed on the importers as well as on Smt Manju Agrawal, Shri Rohan Parakash and M/s Gordon Woodroffee Logistics Ltd. Appeals preferred by the importers, the agent and the individuals is before us. 2. Without any danger of pre-judgement, we may safely say that the impugned order is not 'run of the mill' adjudication; the adjudicating authority has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s is sought to be altered when that is intended to reflect the description in the invoice and, particularly so, as the description corresponding to the claimed tariff item remains unchanged with the revised description. One of the two objectives of the impugned proceedings was, along with determination of prohibition, revision of value which is not contingent upon revision of description but solely attributable to goods being 'prime' instead of 'rejects' that does not have anything to do with description. 5. The customs authorities also sought intervention of a chartered engineer for determination of characteristic of the impugned goods and its value. The impugned order has been less than forthcoming on the contribution of chartered accountant to the proceedings and with neither the statute nor the relevant rules according such procedural intervention by a third person any sanctity. Even the attempt to seek refuge within the ambit of circular [circular no.4/2008-Customs dated 12th February 2008] of Central Board of Excise & Customs (CBEC) fails with the impugned goods not being capital goods. 6. It is common ground that the impugned goods are 'flat-rolled products of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....customs appeal no. 13559 of 2014], in Suncity Strips & Tubes P Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, had acknowledged so. While conceding that the correct quantity had not been reflected in the bills, he also submitted that the appellant had undertaken to discharge the duty assessed thereof even if no further payment was to be made to the supplier. 9. Contesting the requirement to be 'BIS compliant', he submitted that steel, in coil form, was not required to be, considering that the goods were to undergo further processing. He further submitted that 135 imports, effected between April 2020 and July 2023, of theirs were not considered for such treatment as now forced on the goods in the impugned order. These, according to him, should be taken as benchmarks for valuation of the impugned goods. He contended that the imports predate the mandate of furnishing 'BIS certificate' in Steel and Steel Products (Quality Control) Order dated 22nd December 2020 made effective by circular [circular issued from F no. S-20011/14/2021-Tech dated 20th October 2023]. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in JK Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd v. Union of India [1988 SCR (1) 700], ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pply to the impugned goods. Fastening of section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 on the impugned goods for having been imported without BIS certification does not have sanction of law. 13. The goods were declared as 'end cut rejects' which does not prompt re-classification as the goods, either way, are covered by the description in tariff item 7220 2029 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. However, customs authorities opined that the declaration as 'rejects' is not correct. It has been established by the test report that the impugned 'stainless steel articles' are not of even surface and vary in thickness; they are, thus, bound by the distinguishment offered by the Ministry of Steel and, on facts, meriting the consequence of 'defective' with the values being subjected to scrutiny. The finding that the impugned goods were mis-declared is not borne by the facts on record; even if the said declaration was considered a bit stretched, the reliance placed on the enlargement of trade terms planting the impugned goods among 'defective', and not controverted in the impugned order, preclude confiscation and penalty for misdeclaration with intent to evade duties of customs. Furthermo....