2023 (8) TMI 15 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - old and used worn clothing, completely fumigated - restricted goods or not - enhancement of value - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - 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 observed 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 respondent to the tune of 10% 5% respectively on the assessed value is sufficient. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalty confirmed by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are sufficient to meet the end of justice. There are no infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld - appeal of Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the valuation of imported old and used worn clothing, the imposition of redemption fine and penalty, and the classification of goods under Tariff Item No. 63090000 of the First Schedule of the Act.

Valuation and Classification Issue:
The respondent imported old and used worn clothing, leading to value enhancement, confiscation, and the imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The declared value was increased, and penalties were imposed due to the classification of the articles under Tariff Item No. 63090000, a restricted item for import under the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014. The Adjudicating Authority initially imposed redemption fine and penalty, which were later reduced by the ld. Commissioner. The Tribunal observed that Section 111(m) should not be invoked in the absence of a declaration and upheld the confiscation under Section 111(d) for importing goods without a required license. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the assessed value, respectively, in line with the ends of justice.

Legal Observations Issue:
In a previous case, the Tribunal discussed the applicability of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, emphasizing the importance of accurate declarations and the necessity of import licenses for specific goods. The Tribunal highlighted the requirement for compliance with licensing regulations and the role of redemption fines in such cases. Despite some objections raised by the appellants regarding profit margins and market surveys, the Tribunal ultimately upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) while reducing the redemption fine and penalty to ensure justice.

Decision and Conclusion:
After considering the arguments and legal precedents, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order and upheld the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondent. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue, affirming the decision to reduce the redemption fine to 10% and penalty to 5% of the assessed value. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in the open court, bringing closure to the legal proceedings.