Berg Trading Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Sheva

Berg Trading Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, Sheva

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 16, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/27242

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/27242
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: J Balasundaram, J T J.H.
Decided On: Jan 16, 2002
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

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

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Berg Trading Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs, Sheva

Legal References

Reported In: (2002)(143)ELT674Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

.....importer.2. during the arguments before us, shri thackar once again stated that the importer had a unit competent to possess the goods as imported. in the alternative, he seeks re-export of the goods. he submits that even before the commission, the plea was made that the supplier was willing to accept the consignment back.3. we have considered the submission. the conditional release of the goods for home consumption may create procedural problems, both for customs and the importers. this is because the commissioner in his order has not stated as to what findings were made by the chemical examiner and the lead content in the goods. we, therefore, accept the plea for reshipment. reshipment would not attract any fine in lieu of confiscation in view of the considerable expenses involved in payment of demurrage as also the freight outward. normally, an importer would mis-declare the nature of goods to avail of a lower rate of duty. even the commissioner has accepted the fact that the goods imported would attract less rate of duty than the goods declared. finding absence of mala fide use on part of the appellants, we set aside the orders of penalty.4. the appeal is thus, disposed of in above terms, with consequential benefits if any, to the importers.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants imported goods described as "Brass Scrap Drink as per ISRI Specification". The declared value was Rs. 11,73,760/-. On examination, the goods were found to be Brass Dross. Such Dross contains lead equal to or less than 1.25% of the given code and can be imported only by a unit registered with the Environmental Authorities.

Where the lead content is higher than 1.25%, the goods require a licence with conditions specified relating to hazardous goods. The importers waived the issue of notice and claimed that the supplier had committed a mistake and had sent the wrong goods. It was claimed that Brass Scrap was valued higher than the Brass Dross and also that Brass Scrap attracted higher rate at which rate the importers had already paid the duty. The Commissioner in adjudication accepted these claims, but since the goods were imported in contravention of the provisions, directed their confiscation. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on the observation that, but for mis-declaration having been detected, the hazardous goods provisions would have been violated. He rejected the plea of the importers that they could and would sell the goods to a sister unit so registered and therefore, was entitled to import the goods, on the observation that, that unit was not the importer.

2. During the arguments before us, Shri Thackar once again stated that the importer had a unit competent to possess the goods as imported. In the alternative, he seeks re-export of the goods. He submits that even before the Commission, the plea was made that the supplier was willing to accept the consignment back.

3. We have considered the submission. The conditional release of the goods for home consumption may create procedural problems, both for Customs and the importers. This is because the Commissioner in his order has not stated as to what findings were made by the Chemical Examiner and the lead content in the goods. We, therefore, accept the plea for reshipment. Reshipment would not attract any fine in lieu of confiscation in view of the considerable expenses involved in payment of demurrage as also the freight outward. Normally, an importer would mis-declare the nature of goods to avail of a lower rate of duty. Even the Commissioner has accepted the fact that the goods imported would attract less rate of duty than the goods declared. Finding absence of mala fide use on part of the appellants, we set aside the orders of penalty.

4. The appeal is thus, disposed of in above terms, with consequential benefits if any, to the importers.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Berg Trading Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs, Sheva Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge J Balasundaram, J T J.H.