CCE Vs. R.K.G. INTERNATIONAL
LAWS(CE)-2015-2-7
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Decided on February 18,2015

CCE Appellant
VERSUS
R.K.G. International Respondents




JUDGEMENT

R.K. Singh, Member (T) - (1.)REVENUE is in appeal against the Order -in -Appeal No. 78 -Cus/ZB/2010 dated 21.5.2010 which set aside the order -in -original dated 2.2.2010.
(2.)THE respondents had filed Bill of Entry dated 24.12.2009 declaring the goods as (i) 98.940 MT heavy melting steel scrap (ii) 170.350 MT steel slabs. After examination, Revenue took a view that what was declared to be heavy melting scrap was actually re -rolling scrap and therefore not eligible for concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002 -Cus (Sl. No. 20). The adjudicating authority holding that there was mis -declaration of re -rolling scrap as heavy melting scrap as per the examination report of the custom officers ordered confiscation of the same under Section 111(d) & (m) of Customs Act, 1962. Further, although in the discussion and finding portion of the primary order the steel slabs were held to be liable to confiscation under Section 119 ibid, in the order portion of the order they have been confiscated under Section 111(d) & (m) ibid. The primary adjudicating authority imposed redemption fine in lieu of confiscation and also penalty.
The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the relevant invoices of the foreign supplier as well as the pre -shipment inspection certificate describe the impugned goods as HMS and so do the high sea sale contract and the bill of lading. She noted that the respondents even requested for mutilation of goods if the Revenue considered them to be usable as re -rolling scrap and that their request was rejected. She thus found no basis to sustain the impugned order with regard to allegation of mis -declaration of description. She also noted that value had been enhanced from Rs. 41,23,580/ - to Rs. 47,29,432/ - without giving any basis for doing so and found that too unsustainable. The first appellate authority thus set aside the order in original.

(3.)REVENUE has contended that the examination of goods was conducted by the Inspector (Shed), Supdt. (Shed) and Deputy Commissioner (Shed) who clearly opined the goods declared as HMS to be re -rolling scrap as so -called HMS was found to be in the form of steel sheets 10 to 15 feet in length and such sheets can be clearly re -rolled and for such conclusion no expert opinion was required. Regarding enhancement of value, Revenue contended that they had used NIDB data for valuation. Revenue also stated that the respondents suggested manner of mutilation (by cutting the long pieces into smaller pieces) which shows that they knew that even after such mutilation, the goods could be re -rolled.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.