TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (1) TMI 250
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellants have accepted the valuation of the seized goods and have paid duty. The appellants were charged with mis-declaration of the consignment in the Bills of Entry. The bills of entry declared the item as "Tin Free Sheets waste/Waste Defective Sheets" and "Tin Free Waste/Waste Scrolled Sheets". The same were examined by the customs and cleared. However, the consignment was intercepted by the DRI and after hundred per cent examination, it was found that a quantity of 198.673 MTs of Tin Plate Waste/Waste was also present in the consignment and, therefore, the appellants were charged for having mis-declared the goods. The appellant's contention is that they had not ordered for supply of the said item and they were mixed up in the suppl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....late waste/waste in the guise of T.F.S waste/waste bundles. However, the Commissioner ordered for confiscation and grant of release of the goods on payment of redemption fine. 2. Arguing for the appellants, learned Advocate Shri S. Murugappan again raised the same plea that there was no intention to evade duty and only on 100% examination, the tin sheets were found. He submitted that the supplier had also explained that it was due to mix-up at the time of loading of tin sheets which had been loaded by mistake. Thereafter, they raised the invoice and payments were made. He submitted that in the case of Vardhman Sales Agency v. CC, New Delhi, 2000 (121) E.L.T. 320 (T) on similar grounds, the Tribunal has been pleased to set aside the fine ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... case-law cited by the Counsel. He submitted that in the case of Vardhman Sales Agency v. CC, New Delhi (supra), the goods declared were aluminium scrap and there was some differences in the declaration and hence mis-declaration was upheld, while in the present case, the declaration was that tin free sheets waste were declared while it turned out to be tin plate waste. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions and have perused the records and the citations. The importer's contention, as already noted, is that they had not ordered for supply of tin plate waste and it was the supplier who by mistake had loaded the same in the consignment and relied strongly on the supplier's letter 14-5-2001 which is extracted above. They also relied....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....porated herein below :- 6. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also the case law cited by learned Advocate. The impugned order is an order of confiscation of goods with option to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 98,000/- and also an order of imposition of penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellants. It is not an order of classification of the goods, though the aspect of classification looms large in the discussion of the subject by the adjudicating authority. I, therefore, do not find any merit in the jurisdictional objection raised by learned JDR. 7. The simple issue, which has arisen before me, is whether the appellants misdeclared the goods. The fact that the goods were described in the Bill of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the duty was paid on the goods as per sub-heading 7601.20 at the higher rate shows that there was no intention to evade payment of duty. I, therefore, hold the view that the goods were not liable to confiscation. Consequently, imposition of redemption fine and penalty also was unwarranted. I have duly considered the case law cited and have found that the decisions cited are, by and large, applicable to the instant case in favour of the appellants. No better authority has been cited in favour of the Department. I, therefore, cannot sustain the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The appeal is, therefore, allowed [with consequential reliefs, if any] by setting aside the impugned order. 5. In the case of Escorts Ltd. v. CC, New Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lty under that Section cannot be imposed on the Appellants. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty imposed on the part of the Appellants in describing the goods in the bill of entry. A lenient view is also called for in the matter of redemption fine and while upholding the order of confiscation of the goods, we reduce the amount of redemption fine from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh." 6. In view of the fact that the Revenue has not shown that appellant had wilfully suppressed the facts and had mis-declared the goods with intention to evade duty and the fact that he had consciously committed the act of mis-declaration, the ratio of above two rulings would apply and in that view of the matter, the order of confiscation and imposition of fine is ....