2019 (12) TMI 1493 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - old and used worn clothing - enhancement of declared value - Confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT - The enhancement of value has been ordered by the First Appellate Authority on the basis of concurrence given by the importer for such enhancement. There is no challenge to the order of confiscation, but Revenue is challenging the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, which stand reduced by the learned Commissioner(Appeals). Redemption fine - Personal Penalty - HELD THAT - Tribunal in the case of M/S. OMEX INTERNATIONAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI 2015 (4) TMI 112 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) has taken the view that redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of the imported goods, would be appropriate in case of import violating Exim Policy Provisions - there are no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Commissioner(Appeals) on the basis of such decision. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Confiscation of imported goods for violation of Import Trade Control restrictions
- Enhancement of value of imported goods
- Imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty
- Appeal against reduction of redemption fine and penalty
- Challenge by Revenue for review of redemption fine and personal penalty

Confiscation of Imported Goods:
The respondent imported old and used worn clothing, and the declared value of the imported goods was enhanced during the original assessment. The original adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, for violation of Import Trade Control restrictions. The First Appellate Authority upheld the confiscation and enhancement of value, leading to the appeal by the Revenue challenging the reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty.

Enhancement of Value:
The enhancement of value was based on the concurrence given by the importer for such enhancement. The Revenue challenged the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, which had been reduced by the learned Commissioner(Appeals). The appellate tribunal found no challenge to the order of confiscation, focusing solely on the reduction of redemption fine and penalty.

Imposition of Redemption Fine and Personal Penalty:
The original adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine under Section 125 of the Act and a personal penalty under section 112(a) of the Act. The First Appellate Authority reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed to 10% and 5% respectively. The Revenue argued that the redemption fine and personal penalty should be increased to act as a deterrent for frequent importers violating regulations.

Appeal Against Reduction of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The Revenue challenged the order of the learned Commissioner(Appeals) reducing the redemption fine and personal penalty. The Revenue's argument was based on the need for a high amount of redemption fine and penalty to deter frequent importers of worn and used garments violating Import Trade Control regulations.

Challenge by Revenue for Review of Redemption Fine and Personal Penalty:
The Revenue sought a review of the redemption fine and personal penalty, arguing that a higher amount would deter unscrupulous importers. However, the appellate tribunal upheld the impugned order, citing the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in a previous case, where a redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of the imported goods was deemed appropriate for violations of Exim Policy Provisions. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld.