- About Us
- Valuation Law
- WTO/WCO Matters
- Citizen's Charter
2005 (183) E.L.T.52 (Tri.-Mumbai)
IN THE CESTAT,WEST ZONAL BENCH, MUMBAI
S/Shri Krishna Kumar, Member (J) and Moheb Ali M.,Member(T)
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT
Order Nos. A/1730-1731/2004-WZB/C-1,dated 19-10-2004 in Appeal Nos. C/260-261/2004-Mum..
Valuation (Customs)-Scrap- plastic scrap misdeclared as rubber scrap removed from Free Trade Zone- When no evidence of domestic price of plastic scrap, which ordinarily otherwise should have been taken into account, brought out either party, the department has to arrive at valuation on basis of tangibledataavilable with it, though this ratio not application when circumstances not similar, or value determinable by any other means-Section 14 of customs Act, 1962.-Authorities adopted the value at which similar goods were imported. The appellants did not Produce any evidence before the lower authorities as to what according to them is the correct value.Plastic scrap is not a regular item of import nor is easily ascertainable particularly when the imports are restricted.We agree that while valuing the goods domestic price for similar goods should have been taken [para 10]..
REPRESENTED BY:Shri j. Arthur prem, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri K.K.Srivastava, SDR, for the Respondent.
( Order per: Moheb Ali M.,Member (T).-.M/SAmbica Scrap Recy-cling pvt Ltd and its Director are the appellants.
(a)the goods in question should not be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act read with Rule 173Q(1)(a)(b) &(d)of the Central Excise Rules,1944;
(b)the goods in question should not be classified under Custom Tariff heading 3915.90 as plastic scrap;
(c)the plastic scrap being restricted for import should not be confiscated under section 1d11(d)of the Customs Act,1962;
(d)the unit price of plastic scrap should not be taken as US$200 PMT and appropriate beduty not recovered under Section 28 of the Customs Act and under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act;
(e)the trucks used for carrying the said goods should not be confiscated under Section 115(2) of the Customs Act;
(f)why penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) and under Rule 173Q(1)(a) and (b) and (d) should not imposed.
He invoked the provisions of both Customs Act and Central Excise Act and the Rules made thereunder both to demand the differential duty, to impose penalties after classifying the goods under Customs Tariff.He also valued the goods in question to be US$ 200 PMT. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the lower authority except that the reduced the penalty on the company from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.25,000/- Hence these appeals.