2015 (12) TMI 1483 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - Import of restricted goods - Importer does not license to import impugned goods - Held that - impugned goods are not freely importable. Even the ITC (HS) classification for worn clothing and other worn articles against classification CTH 6309 declared these goods and to be restricted subject to import licence. Appellant was well aware that the impugned goods required licence to import as in its own case CESTAT Final Order No.151/2006, dated 07.04.2006 had upheld confiscation of worn clothing for the same reason. Therefore, the confiscation as ordered by the primary adjudicating authority is legally sustainable as the appellant did not have any import licence. We also find that the redemption fine and penalty are in the vicinity of 15% and 20% respectively of the assessable value which for these kind of goods and for a repeat offender are in no way excessive, arbitrary or unreasonable. - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against Order-in-Appeal upholding Order-in-Original for importing restricted goods without a license, contesting the redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:
1. Import of Restricted Goods: The appellant imported worn clothing without the required import license, leading to confiscation of the goods by the primary adjudicating authority under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The appellant admitted the lack of an import license for the goods, which were found to be restricted for import. The primary adjudication order allowed redemption of the goods on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty.

2. Contentions of the Appellant: The appellant argued before the Tribunal that the redemption fine and penalty were excessive. It contended that the transaction value should have been rejected before re-determining the value, citing a Supreme Court judgment. Additionally, the appellant claimed that worn clothing should not be considered restricted for import.

3. Departmental Representative's Support: The Departmental Representative supported the impugned order, asserting that the appellant was aware of the restriction on the imported goods, justifying the redemption fine and penalty.

4. Tribunal's Evaluation: The Tribunal considered both sides' contentions and noted that the appellant had waived the requirement of a Show Cause Notice voluntarily. The declared value was accepted by the primary adjudicating authority, resolving any valuation disputes.

5. Legal Justification for Confiscation: The Tribunal found that the impugned goods were not freely importable, as per the ITC (HS) classification. The appellant's awareness of the import license requirement was highlighted, referencing a previous CESTAT order upholding confiscation for a similar reason. Consequently, the confiscation was deemed legally sustainable due to the absence of an import license.

6. Redemption Fine and Penalty Justification: The Tribunal deemed the redemption fine and penalty, amounting to 15% and 20% of the assessable value respectively, reasonable. Considering the nature of the goods and the appellant's previous offense, the fines were not deemed excessive, arbitrary, or unreasonable.

7. Final Decision: After thorough evaluation, the Tribunal found no defects in the impugned order and dismissed the appeal, upholding the confiscation of the goods and the imposed redemption fine and penalty.