Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2024 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (1) TMI 784 - CESTAT NEW DELHIConfiscation of imported goods - levy of Redemption Fine and penalty - misclassification of goods - old un-mutilated mixed hosiery - restricted item or not - HELD THAT:- It is found that an old un-mutilated mixed hosiery clothing classifiable under Tariff item 63090000 is a restricted item as per Indian Trade Classification (Harmonised System) of Import Items, 2017 (ITC) (HS), 2017 notified by the Central Government under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 (as amended from time to time) read with paragraph 2.01 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015– 2020. As per para 2.08 of the Foreign Trade Policy, restricted items are permitted under an import License/Authorisation/Permission granted by the Director General of Foreign Trade. The appellant has not submitted any such license and therefore the total duty evaded is Rs.3,05,641/-. The present case is squarely covered by the decision in the case of B.K. Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. versus Collector Customs, Cochin, [1999 (8) TMI 359 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI], where the Bills of Entry were assessed to duty by classifying them under Customs Heading 6310.90 as “Completely Pre-mutilated Synthetic/Woollen rags” which were allowed to be imported without license as per the provisions of the export import policy, however, on examination they were found to contain serviceable, non-mutilated used clothes and also the declared value was not found to be correct transaction value. The Tribunal relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Garg Mills (P)Ltd versus Additional Collector [1998 (9) TMI 86 - SUPREME COURT] held that the goods are used and worn clothing, classified under Customs Heading 6309 and confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Act is sustainable. The goods imported were restricted goods and could have been imported on the basis of the Licence issued by the DGFT and being misdeclared in respect of description, weight and value were liable for confiscation and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act for his act of omissions and commissions. The redemption fine imposed on the appellant of Rs.4,50,000/- is commensurate with the assessable value of the goods of ₹22, 90, 920/ and hence requires no interference. Appeal dismissed.
|