2023 (6) TMI 1304 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - old and used worn clothing completely fumigated - restricted goods or not - enhancement of declared value - HELD THAT - This issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of VENUS TRADERS RAINBOW INTERNATIONAL AL-YASEEN ENTERPRISES GLOBE INTERNATIONAL KRISHNA EXPORT CORPORATION PRECISION IMPEX BMC SPINNERS PVT. LTD. SHIVAM TRADERS LEELA WOOLEN MILLS M.U. TEXTILES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) MUMBAI 2018 (11) TMI 625 - CESTAT MUMBAI wherein this Tribunal has held that 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. Thus the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondents by the adjudicating authority is sufficient to meet the end of justice. Therefore the redemption fine and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority are upheld. There are no infirmity in the impugned order and the same are upheld - appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved: Enhancement of redemption fine and penalty on imported old and used worn clothing.

The judgment deals with the appeal by the Revenue against an impugned order regarding the imported old and used worn clothing. The declared value was enhanced, and redemption fine and penalty were imposed due to the classification of the articles under a restricted import item. The Adjudicating Authority imposed redemption fine and penalty at specific rates, and the Revenue sought enhancement of these amounts. The issue before the Tribunal was the adequacy of the redemption fine and penalty.

The Tribunal considered the case in light of a previous decision involving similar circumstances. It was noted that the invocation of Section 111(m) for confiscation did not conform with the law due to the absence of a proper declaration. Confiscation under Section 111(d) was upheld for import without the required license under the Foreign Trade Policy. The Tribunal emphasized that the redemption fine should not exceed the market price of the goods and criticized the delay in conducting a survey for determining the fine amount.

The appellants contested the margin of profit and the validity of the market survey but did not resist the ascertained value. Despite the failure of the original authority to disclose the margin of profit as directed, the Tribunal decided not to remand the case again due to the lack of evidence and limited scope for ascertainment. The confiscation under Section 111(d) was upheld, but the redemption fine was reduced to 10% of the ascertained value and the penalty to 5% to serve the ends of justice.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, finding them sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The impugned order was upheld, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.