2017 (9) TMI 1014 - AT - Customs

Valuation - import of used garments - appellant did not have import license as required by DGFT - confiscation - Held that - the present imports are in violation of import policy prevalent during the material time. As such, importer/appellant is liable for penal action. The goods are liable for confiscation. There can be no legal dispute on this aspect. It is relevant to note that the appellant/importer is fully aware of background and the quantum of enhancement and chose to waive the requirement of written show cause notice as well as the opportunity of being heard before a decision is taken by the Original Authority. In the present appeal, they assert summarily, contesting the findings of the lower authorities. The appellant did not offer any material evidence to support his claim that the used garments imported by them are any different from the used garments which were compared as per the standing instructions and prevailing import value during the material time. They were of fully aware of the background of enhancement including the violation of import policy with reference to the import consignments. The import in violation of import policy has been made with full knowledge. There is no sustainable ground in the present appeals to merit consideration - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported goods, penal proceedings, confiscation, reduction of fines and penalties, waiver of show cause notice and opportunity to be heard.

The judgment pertains to two appeals concerning the valuation and penal proceedings regarding the import of used garments. The appellant imported goods declared as "used and worn un-mutilated and fumigated mix clothing" without the required import license. The Original Authority re-assessed the goods at an enhanced value due to gross undervaluation and ordered confiscation with the option to redeem upon payment of fines under the Customs Act, 1962. The assessable value for two import consignments was determined, along with redemption fines and penalties under Section 112(a) of the Act.

Upon appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the re-assessment of value but reduced the redemption fines and penalties imposed. Despite multiple notices, the appellant did not appear for the appeals, leading to the Tribunal's decision based on appeal records and hearing the Authorized Representative for Revenue. The Tribunal noted the import policy violation, making the importer liable for penal action and goods liable for confiscation. The appellant argued that the valuation was incorrect, citing lack of proper market enquiry and differences in nature compared to other consignments.

The Tribunal observed that the goods were examined in detail by Customs Authorities, and the Original Authority enhanced the value after considering prevailing import values. The appellant, having waived the right to show cause notice and hearing, failed to provide material evidence supporting the claim of differences in imported garments. The Tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the Original Authority's findings, noting the reduction of fines and penalties by the Commissioner (Appeals) as adequate. The case laws cited were duly examined, and the appeals were dismissed based on lack of merit.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the re-assessment of value, confirmed the reduction of fines and penalties, and dismissed the appeals due to the appellant's failure to provide substantial evidence supporting their claims and the Commissioner (Appeals) adequately addressing the penalties and fines.