/A -•A, I-Ol % 05.08.2010 Present: Mr. Piyiish Kumar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Mukesh Anand and Mr. Mohit Yadav, Advocates, for the respondent. +CUS.AA No. 5/2010 * Proceedings were initiated against the appellant herein which were triggered of hy the import of certain material and the same being mis- declared. Ithas come on recordthaton 26"^ March, 1999,inpursuanceofan information, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi, examined ten containers imported by M/s. Hindustan Overseas, A- 313, Chandgi Ram Block, Khel Gaon, New Delhi at ICD, Ballabgarh, Haryana. In the import documents for these containers, the goods were declared as zinc slabs "scull" with the declared GIF price @ U.S.$575 per M.T. The quantity declared was 201.866 M.T. and the country of origin as declared was Netherlands. However, on examination, the goods were found to be prime quality zinc ingots of Russian origin, wrapped in pallets with iron strips and as per laboratory test certificates sent by the supplier, the purity was 99.995%. The actual quantity of the goods was found to be 269.79 MTs as against the declaredquantity of 201.866 MT. The goods had been supplied by M/s. American Trade Link Inc., Texas, USA whose Cus.AA No. 5/2010 Page No. 1 of 3 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified V proprietor was one Sh.Naresh Mittal. The goods in the 10 containers were placed under seizure on 26"^ March, 1999. The case against the M/s. Hindustan Overseas resulted in issue of a show cause notice dated 23'^'' December, 1999. Subsequent enquiry revealed that from the same supplier; there were other imports in the past at ICD, Ballabgarh wherein the goods had been declared as secondary zinc ingots and one such was by M/s. Chirag Enteiprises, whose proprietor was Mr. Sudhanshu Mittal. M/s. Chirag had imported consignments in six containers declared to contain "108.047 MTS of secondary zinc ingots in 157 bundles, totally valued at Rs.31,58,641/-". The Department therefore, on the basis of the actual quality and quantity of the goods imported by the appellant herein estimated its value at Rs.70,34,034/- as against the declared value of Rs.31,58,641/-. The appellant was asked to deposit the differential duty and a penalty of equal amount was also imposed. The appeal preferred by the appellant before the CESTAT has also been dismissed. We may note that the authorities below have arrived at the finding of facts in respect of misdeclaration of goods qua content as well as quantity; the relationship of the proprietor of the appellant-firm with Sh. Naresh Mittal, who is in USA and who dispatched the goods to the appellant; and the statement of the proprietor of the appellant recorded on Cus.AA No. 5/2010 Page No. 2 of 3 24^'' September,1999was not retracted. The adjudicating authority also found that a number of other purchasers,including M/s. Alok Overseas,M/s. Ashish International,M/s. Veer Enterprises, etc. had imported the goods from the same supplier and ^ had indulged in similar malpractice of misdeclarationof those goods. Action was taken against all such persons. The appeals of other such defaulters have also been dismissed by the Tribunal albeit on the ground that the order of pre-deposit was not complied with by those importers. In paragraph4 of the impugnedorder,the CESTAThas describedin detail,the modus operandi adopted by all these importerswhile importingthe goods from the same person, namely, Mr. Naresh Mittal. We are of the opinion that no questionof law arises. The learned counsel for the appellant has made the same submissions before us which were advanced before the Tribunal and rightly rejected by the Tribunal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. 4 A'fesiKRI,J. REVA KHETRAPAL, J. AUGUST 05, 2010 sk Cus-AA No. 5/2010 Page No. 3 of 3