ORDER
C. Satapathy, Member (T)
1. We have heard both sides. This appeal arises out of the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on 31-10-1997. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has passed a very detailed speaking order and he has come to the finding as follows :-
“The appellants being the importers are necessarily to be attributed with the knowledge of Customs law including the aspects of classification of the goods imported by them under the Customs Act. Even otherwise, with their experience in the industry and the trade, they should be deemed to have the knowledge of what they have imported i.e. the imported goods are alloy steel, and that too when the purchase order with them clearly speaks of, the composition of the goods indicating that the goods were alloy steel. Thus the appellants being actual user, industrials should have declared the correct classification in the bill of entry. In terms of the declaration to be given by the importer in the Bill of Entry, the appellants had to give complete information about the description of the goods based on the documents in their hand and, since they had documents on the composition of the goods, they should have indicated that too in the body of the Bill of Entry. Whether they did it purposefully or otherwise, it remains a fact that they have withheld relevant information and indirectly indicated the classification of the goods as non-alloy steel bars by declaring in the Bill of Entry that the goods were just ‘Steel Bars’ and seeking clearance of the same under advance license covering only non-alloy steel products. In the normal course, the circumstances of the case would lead one to believe, as rightly observed by the Addl. Commissioner, that it was apparently a deliberate attempt to fraudulently claim duty free benefit. However, for imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, mens rea is not a necessary pre-requisite. In the light of the above discussion, I observe that the misde-claration of the imported goods rendered it liable to confiscation in terms of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act. It is true that the Addl. Commissioner has not specified the Section under which the confiscation has been ordered. However, his order has very clearly stated that the “imported goods also are liable for confiscation consequent to such mis-declaration.” It is writ large on the face of the Customs Act that mis-declaration of the description of the imported goods renders the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act. Since the violation, for which the goods have been confiscated has been described althrough the Order and highlighted at the point of holding the goods liable for confiscation, I do not find the omission to mention the Section of the Customs Act under which the goods have been confiscated to be such an infirmity to render the Order unsustainable.”
2. We do not find any reason to differ from the views expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in his detailed Order extracted above. However, taking into account all aspects of the case we reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 1.5 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 50,000/- with consequential benefit to the appellant.
3. The appeal is dismissed except for reduction in the amount of redemption fine and penalty as indicated above.