CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS
S.L. Peeran, S.S. Sekhon, JJ.
Pushpit Steels (P.) Ltd. -Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Kochi -Respondent
Final Order Nos. 1159 & 1160/2000 Misc. Order No. 396/2000 C/Misc./177/2000 Appeal Nos. C/132/2000, C/134/2000/Md, 1159 of 2000, 1160 of 2000, 396 of 2000, C/Misc./177 of 2000, C/132 of 2000, C/134 of 2000
Decided On : 10-08-2000
Per S.S. Sekhon :
Miscellaneous application for expeditious hearing of appeals allowed as goods lying uncleared and appeals taken up for hearing for decision by this order. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs, Kochi, wherein duty of Rs. 27,96,382 has been demanded and consignment of HSM scrap imported vide Bill of Entries No. 7724/23.11.98, 83029/31.2.98, 8593/23.12.98, 8698/28.12.98, 32/4.1.99, 33/4.1.99 and 34/4.1.99 were found liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, as only 655.43 MT of cargo was under seizure and therefore this amount of scrap was ordered to be confiscated under Section 111 (d) and 111 (m) of the CA'62 with option of redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 7,50,000 besides penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on appellants-importers i.e. M/s. Pushpit Steels (P) Ltd. under Section 112 (a) of the CA and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh was imposed under Section 112 (a) of the CA'62 on Anand Kumar Garg.
2. (a) Three BEs were filed for HMS scrap and were cleared duty free on advance licences on Bill of Lading as per chart given below :
| Sl. | Bill of Entry No. | Bill of Lading No. | Adv. Licence No. | Expiry dt. | |
| 1. | 7724/23.11.98 | APLU006405988/30.9.98 | P/0483935/C/XX/33/C/94 | 11.9.98 | |
| 2. | 8029/3.12.98 | KWT/XPK/207/044/29.9.98 | -do- | -do- | |
| 3. | 8593/23.12.98 | APLU006406568/29.9.98 | P/W/03497924/C/XX/31/C/93 | 30.9.98 |
Total quantity of the HMS scrap covered by these three BEs was 436 MT out of which 356 MTs could not be located and was said to have been consumed and 70 MT was seized at the factory premises of the importer at Pondicherry.
(b) In the following BE, 585 MT of the HMS scrap was imported by the same importer through Kochi port.
| Sl. | Bill of Entry | Bill of Lading | Adv. Licence No. | Date of expiry | |
| 1. | 8698/28.12.98 | APLU006406585/29.9.98 | E/W-0363903/C/XX/32/C/94 | 30.9.98 | |
| 2. | 32/4.1.99 | -do- | -do- | -do- | |
| 3. | 33/4.1.99 | APLU006406610/29.9.98 | P/W/036390/C/XX/32/C/94 | -do- | |
| P/W/0483615/C/XX/33/C/94 | -do- | ||||
| P/W/0363941/C/XX/32/C/94 | 24.9.98 | ||||
| 4. | 34/4.1.99 | APLU006406611/29.9.88 | P/W/0363941/C/XX/32/C/94 | 29.9.98 |
These BEs were not assessed, but were taken over by the DRI officers who had developed intelligence that the said importer was misusing the Advance Licences with the help of bogus import documents and was clearing HMS scrap duty free. Enquiries were conducted by the DRI officers with the shipping agents and others, including the original exporters who were issued with the said import licences and the consequent to these enquiries, 28 containers of scrap covered by the four BEs pending clearance at Kochi Customs House were removed from Kochi Port escorted to the importer's manufacturing premises at Pondicherry, where they were examined and seized on various dates from 12.2.99 to 18.2.99. Show cause notice was thereafter issued by the Additional Director General of the DRI resulting in the above said order of the Commissioner of Customs, Kochi.
3. Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Shri Rawal, learned Counsel reiterated the grounds made in the appeal and submitted the following points.
(a) the subject goods are placed under the OGL and no licence was required for import and as such irrespective of the fact whether the Bill of Lading are ante dated as alleged, even otherwise the order of confiscation could not have been passed.
(b) DRI cannot issue show cause notice under Section 124 read with Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
(c) There is no allegation of intent to evade payment of duty in terms of Section 28 of the Act by fraud or collusion and as such the bar of limitation for issue of show cause notice can be put in to operation. In the alternative, subject to what is submitted above, if all or any duty is liable to be paid, appellants being the actual users, is entitled to concessional rate of duty in terms of the Customs Notification No. 23/98. (Sl. 123). Part of the goods weighing 426 MTs have been cleared on BEs assessed by the Proper Officer, without any adverse remarks after physical verification and this cannot be the subj
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.