M/s Stainless India Ltd. vs CC, Jodhpur

The dispute between both the parties is as to whether three different types of goods found at the time of physical examination to be dealt as single

goods for levy of Customs duty or as three different goods for applicability of respective duty rate to each such goods.

Shri Agarwal, ld. C.A. says that when physical examination revealed three different types of goods in the consignment that shall never be single

goods for the purpose of levy basing on the table exhibited by para 6.12 of the adjudication order. He says that he has worked out the duty liability in

respect of three such different types of goods found in the consignment applying respective rate of duty prevailing at the material time for each such

goods. According to him, differential duty liability arises is Rs.12,872/- and against that amount, he says that his client has deposited Rs.1,08,853/-

during investigation. Therefore the balance amount of Rs.19,872/- is to be discharged. He also says that due to encashment of bank guarantee, even

balance amount of Rs.19,872/- also stands discharged. His further version is that amount more than that is recoverable has been recovered. The

arithmetical exercise depicted in the paper book filed is not possible to be sorted out now. Therefore Shri Agarwal, ld. C.A. is required to appear

before the ld. Adjudicating authority to produce the same chart given to us during course of hearing to explain the ultimate liability that arises out of his

calculation. Duty if due shall be payable and refund if any that may arise, shall be allowed by ld. Adjudicating Authority.

Further pleading of the ld. C.A. is that redemption fine and penalty should not be imposed. Record does not reveal whether there was any

concealment of three different types of goods. The only view that was taken in physical examination is that the same contents made the goods to fall

in three different categories. That does not lead to any inference that there was a mis-declaration, since physical examination report did not bring out

deliberate mis-declaration rather guided Authority below to classify the same import under three different categories. Accordingly, there shall be no

redemption fine nor penalty imposable.

With the aforesaid direction, the appeal is disposed and appellant to report before the ld. adjudicating authority to work out ultimate duty liability if

any to be discharged.

(Dictated & pronounced in open Court)