9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 637X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... US$ 1.316 per kg and redemption fine and penalty were also imposed on the ground that the old and used worn clothing articles are classifiable under Tariff Item No.63090000 of the First Schedule of the Act and is a restricted item for import as per Para 2.31 of Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 and para 2.33 & 2.33a of the Handbook of Procedures (HBP). Import of goods under Tariff Item No.63090000 is restricted and their import is allowed only against a valid specific license. 2.2 The Appellate Authority has imposed redemption fine (RF) and penalty (PP) at the rate of 10% and 5%, reducing the RF/PP from an average of 20-35% & 10-20% respectively, as imposed by the adjudicating authority. 2.3 Against the said order, the Revenue is before us f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsequently, confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 in the impugned order cannot be faulted. Release of confiscated goods to the importer is contingent upon fine in lieu imposed under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. The redemption fine is not, in terms of the statute, permitted to exceed the market price of the goods and the undertaking of a survey is not improper. However, such a survey, more than a decade after the import and, that too, after remand was ordered by the Tribunal, does not appear to the intent of the decision of the Tribunal. The remand order is specific in directing that the margin of profit, ascertained for computation of the fine, should be made known to the appellant. It is, therefore, the manner in whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t survey was done whose salient features are as follows :' in the impugned order. 6. Though the appellants question the margin of profit and the validity of market survey, there is no serious resistance to the ascertained value. 7. Considering the various issues and submissions made and 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. However, the paucity of evidence and the negligible scope for ascertainment at this stage deters us from doing so. In the light of the admitted failure to comply with the licensing requirements, we uphold the confiscation of the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
