Commissioner of Cus. Vs. Shree Vaishno Acrylic Plastic

Commissioner of Cus. vs Shree Vaishno Acrylic Plastic

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 05, 2000

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/18192

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/18192
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On: May 05, 2000
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Cus.

Respondent

Shree Vaishno Acrylic Plastic

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(122)ELT796Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the appeal is against the order of the collector declining to confiscate the goods imported by the respondent.2. we have heard the departmental representative. the respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.3. the goods imported were declared to be plastic scrap/pvc tubing scarp. examination of the goods showed the presence of considerable extent of acrylic plastic scrap which we are told is of a higher value.the collector has, in fact, ordered that the value to be determined on the basis that nine packages contained 70% acrylic scrap and the remaining 30% contained pvc scrap. in that situation, it is difficult to accept the finding of the collector that there was no intention to misdeclare that the goods were not liable to confiscation. the reasoning in support of this view of his is that manufacturers of the product do not segregated difference kinds of scrap but "dump it" on importers head. as against this, the importer had himself stated that he was a manufacturer of acrylic plastic sheets for which there would be no need for any pvc scrap. another fabric is a high proportion of the pvc. thirdly, that the goods had been supplied by the firm named m/s. plastic paradise inc., new york at us $ 130 per metric tonne from which the respondent has regularly been importing goods for a long period of time. the collector has ignored these facts in coming to his conclusion and we accept the contention of the appellant that they should now be considered.'the question of any confiscation of the goods however will not be available since they have already been released, and it is not shown that they are available.4. accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the commissioner to consider the liability to penalty under section 112 of the act on the part of the appellant, according to law.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal is against the order of the Collector declining to confiscate the goods imported by the respondent.

2. We have heard the departmental representative. The respondent is absent and unrepresented despite notice.

3. The goods imported were declared to be plastic scrap/PVC tubing scarp. Examination of the goods showed the presence of considerable extent of acrylic plastic scrap which we are told is of a higher value.

The Collector has, in fact, ordered that the value to be determined on the basis that nine packages contained 70% acrylic scrap and the remaining 30% contained PVC scrap. In that situation, it is difficult to accept the finding of the Collector that there was no intention to misdeclare that the goods were not liable to confiscation. The reasoning in support of this view of his is that manufacturers of the product do not segregated difference kinds of scrap but "dump it" on importers head. As against this, the importer had himself stated that he was a manufacturer of acrylic plastic sheets for which there would be no need for any PVC scrap. Another fabric is a high proportion of the PVC. Thirdly, that the goods had been supplied by the firm named M/s. Plastic Paradise Inc., New York at US $ 130 per metric tonne from which the respondent has regularly been importing goods for a long period of time. The Collector has ignored these facts in coming to his conclusion and we accept the contention of the appellant that they should now be considered.'The question of any confiscation of the goods however will not be available since they have already been released, and it is not shown that they are available.

4. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and direct the Commissioner to consider the liability to penalty under Section 112 of the Act on the part of the appellant, according to law.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Cus. vs Shree Vaishno Acrylic Plastic Same Subject Customs