2023 (6) TMI 1305 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - old and used worn clothing - restricted goods or not - classifiable under Tariff Item No.63090000 of the First Schedule of the Act or not - enhancement of 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. 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. Impugned order upheld - appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the enhancement of redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondent for the import of old and used worn clothing, the classification of goods under Tariff Item No. 63090000, and the compliance with licensing requirements under the Foreign Trade Policy.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Enhancement of Redemption Fine and Penalty
The Revenue appealed against the impugned order which assessed old and used worn clothing imported by the respondent after value enhancement, confiscation, and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The declared value was increased from US$ 0.45 per kg to US$ 0.60 per kg, with redemption fine and penalty imposed due to the classification of the goods under Tariff Item No. 63090000 and the requirement of a specific license for import. The Adjudicating Authority imposed redemption fine and penalty at rates of 19.5% and 7.8% of the assessed value, respectively. The Revenue sought enhancement of these amounts.

Issue 2: Compliance with Licensing Requirements
The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was observed that confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified for the import of old and serviceable garments without the required import license as per the Foreign Trade Policy. The Tribunal noted that the release of confiscated goods is subject to a fine imposed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, which should not exceed the market price of the goods. Despite some discrepancies in the valuation process, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods but reduced the redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the ascertained value, respectively, to serve the ends of justice.

Conclusion:
Based on the cited decision and the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal upheld the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, finding them sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed.