TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2002 (4) TMI 203
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....der heading 5503.30 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and finally assessed to duty at CIF value @ US $1.12 per kg. (ii) M/s. H.B. Fibres Ltd., Ludhiana are liable to pay customs duty amounting to Rs. 35,46,456/- under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 and I have held so. The show-cause notice points out that M/s. H.B. Fibres Ltd. had deposited a sum of Rs. 3,12,982/- at the time of filing Bills of Entry and paid Rs. 12,30,000/- vide Bank Draft No. 641494 dated 19-8-99, Rs. 5,00,000/- vide bankers Cheque No. 079585, dated 11-12-1999, Rs. 3,00,000/- vide case order No. 642098, dated 11-12-1999, Rs. 6,00,000/- vide Cheque No. 315973, dated 5-2-2000 and Rs. 6,04,600/- vide Cheq....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2.The brief facts of the case are that M/s. H.B. Fibres Ltd., Ludhiana imported two consignments of goods, declared as "wool waste", from M/s. Bollag International Corporation (USA) and sought to clear the same at CFS, Ludhiana under two Bills of Entry Nos. 1823 and 1824, dated 7-9-98 filed by one Shri D.D. Singh, holding power-of-attorney of one Shri M.L. Sharma, claiming to be a director of M/s. H.B. Fibres Ltd; that the goods were assessed to duty under Customs Tariff Heading 51.03 and the duty was paid by the importer, that on a second check the goods in both the consignments were found to be "acrylic fibre" classifiable under CTH 55.03 attracting (apart from Anti-dumping Duty) higher rates of va....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as under : (a) It was conceded by the appellants that the imported goods which were declared as "wool waste" in the import documents, were acrylic fibre. The appellants paid the differential amount of duty on the differential value between US $ 1.12 per kg. (at which rate the foreign supplier was found to have actually supplied the goods) and US $ 0.60 per kg. (invoiced price). The amounts paid by the appellants totalling to Rs. 35,46,456/- were liable to be appropriated towards duty on the acrylic fibre (Customs Tariff Sub-heading 5503.30) under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act; (b) The invoice price of US $ 0.60 per kg. of what was described as "wool wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bmitted that, in this appeal, they were not challenging the demand of duty or the imposition of penalty. The challenge is against redemption fine and interest on duty only. Vis-a-vis the redemption fine, the counsel submitted that there was no evidence to show that the appellants were aware of the fact that the goods were liable to confiscation. The misdeclaration and undervaluation were done by Shri Ravi Jagota of M/s. Youngman Industries Ltd. The appellants had acted in a bona fide manner only. Hence there was no valid reason for imposing on them any redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the goods. In this connection, Ld. counsel relied on the following case law : (i) Akbar Badruddin J....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....also sought to distinguish the other decisions cited by the counsel. 6.We have examined the submissions. The challenge to demand of duty and imposition of penalty has not been pressed before us. We therefore affirm the demand of duty confirmed by the lower authority and the penalty imposed by it. As we find that the assessment was provisional at the time of clearance of the goods and the duty liability as confirmed by the adjudicating authority was discharged by the assessee prior to finalisation of the assessment, we have to sustain the counsel's challenge to the interest sought to be levied under Section 28AB. The demand of interest is therefore set aside. The confiscability of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act was conced....