2004 (11) TMI 196

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ste /scrap) which on examination revealed that the same were not "Plastic Powder for Re-cycling" as declared. The goods were found to be undervalued, as compared to Platt prices, the test report did not confirm the declaration which consisted of Polyethylene having specific granules more than 0.94, in primary forms. Import of the said goods was not permissible, the duty exemption under Notification 133/94 were not available and confiscation and penalty liabilities were involved. 1.3 The Adjudicator confirmed the enhancement of value, classified the goods under C.T.H. heading 3901.20, denied the benefit of Notification No. 133/94, ordered the confiscation under section 111(d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Foreign Trade (Deve....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....toms is not correct as they had been permitted to import Plastic waste and scrap duty free and not prime plastic material. Once mis-declaration was established, the goods were liable for confiscation and duty was required to be demanded as the import was not as per the permission of Development Commissioner vide their letter, dated 8-12-1997. The exemption was available under Notification No. 133/94 to goods which were permitted to be imported by the Development Commissioner i.e. Plastic waste and scrap and not primary material. In an identical case, the confiscation was upheld by the Tribunal in the case of M/s. V.M. Metals v. Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata reported in 2002 (143) E.L.T. 68 (Tri-Kolkatta). In this case, the good....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eport. The appellant had also paid Rs. 4.5 lakhs as redemption fine for the release of the goods, it appears to be on the higher side as no details have been given regarding margin of profit etc. Accordingly, I reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 4.5 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs. Penalty under Section 112 has been imposed to the extent of Rs. 5 lakhs. This also I reduce to Rs. 2 lakhs. Accordingly, the appeals are modified to the extent above." 1.5 Hence these appeals. 2.1 The reliance placed, on Platt prices, cannot be upheld in view of the decision of Adani Exports v. CC, Vishakapatanam [2000 (116) E.L.T. 715] confirmed by S.C. 2.2 The lower authorities have held the goods to be Plastic in primary forms only on the basis of report of ....