CUSAP No. 19 of 2008 ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CUSAP No. 19 of 2008 Date of decision : August 28, 2008 Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Container Freight Station (PSWC), Ludhiana ...... Appellant. through Ms. Geeta Singhwal, Advocate v. M/S Dewan Steel Industries, ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J The present appeal has been filed by the revenue proposing the following questions of law :- “i). Whether the instructions were applicable in the situation when the predominance of the goods was of serviceable material and not scrap ? ii). Whether mutilation of the goods can be allowed in the absence of rules framed by the Government under section 24 of the Customs Act, 1962 ? iii) Whether the action of the respondent warrants for the confiscation and imposition of penalty and CUSAP No. 19 of 2008 ::2:: redemption fine ? iv) Whether the Ld. Tribunal is justified in allowing the appeal without discussing the issue and merits of the case altogether ? v) Whether the order of the Ld. Tribunal is per-se illegal and the findings recorded therein are perverse and unsustainable in the eyes of law ? vi) Whether the Ld. Tribunal has failed to appreciate the ratio of its own judgments on the subject in other cases ?” The respondent-assessee had imported 133.573 metric tonnes of Heavy Melting Scrap (HMS), comprised in seven containers, which were offered for examination on various dates starting from 27.4.2000. On such examination, one container was found to contain 15.675 metric tonnes of M.S Rounds. Admittedly, immediately thereafter and later, the assessee moved applications dated 25.5.2000 and 23.6.2000 requesting for release of the said goods after mutilation. Thereafter, a notice, dated 13.12.2000 was issued to the assessee to show cause as to why the goods should not be correctly classified; assessed to duty at higher rate; confiscated; and penal action be not taken. After hearing, the Assessing Authority (Additional Commissioner) ordered redemption fine of Rs.25,000/- besides payment of higher duty and a penalty of Rs.15,000/-. The appeal by the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal holding that there was no deliberate mis-declaration by the assessee and that there was no reason to dis-allow the prayer for mutilation and release as scrap and consequently the imposition of penalty and redemption fine was set aside. CUSAP No. 19 of 2008 ::3:: In our opinion, this appeal must fail. The finding that the assessee had not mis-declared the goods is a finding of fact, which has not been shown to be perverse so as to justify interference in appeal. In the circumstances, in our view, the questions proposed do not arise in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE August 28, 2008 'kk'