ORDER : Delay condoned. 2. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondents in spite of service of notice. In these circumstances, we have no option but to proceed with the matter ex-parte. 3. The brief facts which may be noted are that the respondents herein filed Bills of Entries for the clearance of goods declared as "Heavy Melting Scrap" classifying the same under Heading 7204 of Customs Tariff and benefited under Notification No. 21/20102-Cus. (Sl. No. 200). However, based on Docks Intelligence Unit Report received by the appellant herein to the effect that the goods which were imported are "Used Rails" in the guise of "Heavy Material Scrap", the appellant got the said goods examined and it was found that imported goods were in fact Rails and not Heavy Material Scrap as declared by the respondents. On that basis Order-in-Original dated 12-1-2010 was passed by classifying the goods under CTH 7302 and benefit of the aforesaid Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. (Sl. No. 200) was accordingly denied to the respondents. In this Order-in-Original apart from levying the customs duty, fine as well as penalty was also imposed. 4. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the respondents filed appeals before the CESTAT. Vide impugned order dated 11-2-2014, the Tribunal allowed the appeals holding that the goods would be classified under CTH 7204 as these were in fact "Heavy Melting Scrap" and not "Rails". 5. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, Solicitor General, appearing for the appellant has drawn our attention to letter dated 9-12-2009 which was written by the respondents themselves after the goods were examined by the appellant and found to be Rails. In this letter the respondents had requested to condone the misdeclaration of the cut Rails as HMS Scrap and even stated that they had declared the value for the HMS Scrap as US$ 350/MT and the respondents further volunteered to correct the value of the cut Rails as US$ 418/MT. This letter clearly shows that the respondents themselves accepted that what was in fact imported was used Rails and not Heavy Material Scrap. The respondents even went to the extent of admitting the misdeclaration of the goods as "Heavy Material Scrap". 6. In these circumstances, the findings of the Tribunal in the impugned order treating, the goods as Heavy Material Strap and not Rails are clearly erroneous. 7. The respondents even went to the extent of admitting the misdeclaration of the goods as "Heavy Material Scrap". 6. In these circumstances, the findings of the Tribunal in the impugned order treating, the goods as Heavy Material Strap and not Rails are clearly erroneous. 7. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and restore the order passed by the Assessing Officer. 8. No costs.