9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Classification of imported goods - brand new garments, used garments, and synthetic rags. 2. Valuation of goods for duty calculation. 3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty on importers. Classification of Imported Goods: The case involved the classification of imported goods as brand new garments, used garments, and synthetic rags. The Commissioner of Customs observed that the consignments were mixed lots containing various types of garments. The Commissioner classified brand new garments under Chapters 61 and 62, used garments under CTH 6309, and synthetic rags under CTH 6310. The Commissioner ordered the consignments to be charged at the highest rate of duty and cleared against a Special Import Licence due to the difficulty in sorting and classifying each bale accurately. The Commissioner also emphasized the need for a redemption fine for non-production of specific import licences and misdeclaration of goods. Valuation of Goods for Duty Calculation: The Revenue contested the valuation of goods at US $0.35 per kg, arguing that this value was declared for synthetic rags and not for brand new garments found in the consignment. The Revenue believed that the market price for brand new garments should be calculated on a unit price basis rather than a per kg basis. The Revenue sought a higher redemption fine due to the high profit margin involved in the case. However, the Tribunal noted previous orders reducing fines to Rs. One per kilo and rejected the Revenue's request for an increase in the fine. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty on Importers: The Revenue also sought stringent penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, based on the importers' intention to clear the consignments as synthetic rags. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions highlighting that the imposition of penalties under Section 112 is not mandatory and depends on the circumstances of each case. In this case, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision not to impose a penalty, considering factors such as the duty charged, the production of a Special Import Licence, and the heavy demurrage and detention charges incurred by the importers. The Tribunal agreed with the Commissioner's reasoning that no penalty was warranted in these circumstances. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, rejecting the appeals and disposing of cross-objections accordingly.
|
