2011 (5) TMI 781

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... SDR appearing for Revenue. No one appeared for the Respondent. 2. As per the facts on record, the respondents imported a consignment of worn clothing and filed Bill of Entry, dated 2-7-2007 declaring the assessable value of the same as US $ 0.20 per Kg. (CIF). Inasmuch as the import of worn clothing and used articles of textile materials are restricted and is allowed clearance only against valid import licence and as the importers did not have any specific licence for import of the goods in question, the same were believed to have been imported in contravention of the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy and as such liable to confiscation. Revenue also doubted the declared value of the said clothing inasmuch as the other contemporaneou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... imilar imports inasmuch as the old and used clothing in each consignment would be different in quality, use of clothes, types of clothing etc. For the above proposition, they relied upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also of the Tribunal. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide his impugned order accepted the above stand of the Appellant by observing as under :- "Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Eicher Tractors Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) has laid down the law that "reading Rule 3 (i) and Rule 4(1) together, it is clear that a mandate has been cast on the authorities to accept the price actually paid or payable for the goods in respect of the goods under assessment as the transaction value .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion issue of worn clothings/other worn articles and in those cases I had allowed the appeals by rejecting the enhanced assessable value. Therefore, in the present case also, I do not see any reason to differ with my above orders-in-Appeal on the valuation aspect." 4. However, as regards the confiscability of the goods on account of non-production of licence, he held that admittedly the imported goods were restricted items could not have been imported without the import licence. He accordingly, upheld the confiscability of the goods but reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 30,000/- and personal penalty of Rs. 15,000/-. The said order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is impugned before us. 5. Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue reiterat .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X