9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 89 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - old and used worn clothing, completely fumigated - restricted goods or not - enhancement of value - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT - This issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of VENUS TRADERS, RAINBOW INTERNATIONAL, AL-YASEEN ENTERPRISES, GLOBE INTERNATIONAL, KRISHNA EXPORT CORPORATION, PRECISION IMPEX, BMC SPINNERS PVT. LTD., SHIVAM TRADERS, LEELA WOOLEN MILLS, M.U. TEXTILES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) MUMBAI 2018 (11) TMI 625 - CESTAT MUMBAI , wherein this Tribunal has held that The failure of the original authority to comply with the direction in remand to disclose the margin of profit that prompted the fine and penalty, the matter would normally have to be remitted back by another remand order. Against the confirmed duties and the penalties the Redemption Fine imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Respondent has not filed any appeals. The redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondents by the adjudicating authority is sufficient to meet the end of justice. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority are upheld - there are no infirmity in the impugned order and the same are upheld. The appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the enhancement of redemption fine and penalty imposed on imported old and used worn clothing, the classification of the goods under Tariff Item No.63090000, and the compliance with licensing requirements under the Customs Act, 1962. Enhancement of Redemption Fine and Penalty: The Revenue appealed against the impugned order which enhanced the declared value of imported old and used worn clothing from US$ 0.45 per kg to US$ 0.60 per kg. Additionally, redemption fine and penalty were imposed due to the classification of the goods under Tariff Item No.63090000, a restricted item for import. The Adjudicating Authority imposed redemption fine and penalty at the rate of 19.5% & 7.8% of the assessed value respectively. The Revenue sought enhancement of these fines and penalties. However, the Tribunal, after hearing the parties and perusing the records, referred to a previous case and held that the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority were sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority were upheld, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. Compliance with Licensing Requirements: The Tribunal observed that the proceedings initiated against most of the imports commenced even before the filing of bills of entry. It noted that confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was invoked for the import of 'old and serviceable garments' without the required import license as per the Foreign Trade Policy. The Tribunal emphasized that the release of confiscated goods to the importer is contingent upon the fine imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. While the Tribunal acknowledged the failure of the original authority to comply with the direction in remand to disclose the margin of profit that prompted the fine and penalty, it upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to 10% of the ascertained value and penalty to 5%, stating that it would serve the ends of justice. Consequently, it upheld the redemption fine and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority, finding no infirmity in the impugned order.
|
