2023 (8) TMI 948 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - old and used garments, completely fumigated - restricted item or not - enhancement of value - classification of imported goods - classifiable under Tariff Item No.63090000 of the First Schedule of the Act or not - HELD THAT - The department has not categorically mentioned what should be the Classification sought by them or what is the value proposed. In the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has classified some goods under Tariff Item 63090000 and the bales of quit found in the consignments have been classified under Tariff Item 94049019 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - It is observed that there is no valid reason given in the grounds of appeal for any revised classification. Accordingly, the classification arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority is proper and doesn't require any modification. Valuation of the goods imported - HELD THAT - The goods were used and worn garments. The declared value was enhanced to US 0.60 per kg under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and the department has not produced any additional evidence for further enhancement. Accordingly, the redetermined value doesn't require any modification or further enhancement. Redemption fine and penalty imposed - HELD THAT - This valuation 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 the various issues and submissions made and 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. It is observed that while deciding the quantum of the redemption fine and personal penalty, the Adjudicating Authority has taken into account the detention charges, the demurrage charges and the damage already incurred on the impugned goods. The Adjudicating Authority has also considered the Final Order dated 19.09.2014 of the CESTAT, EZB, Kolkata in the case of M/s S.S. Impex, wherein redemption fine of 19.5% and penalty @ 7.8% were imposed, under similar circumstances - the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondent to the tune of 20% 8% respectively on the assessed value is sufficient. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Ld. Commissioner are sufficient to meet the end of justice. Penalties - HELD THAT - The Adjudicating Authority has imposed Rs.3,00,000/- Penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - It is found that there is no ground available in this case to impose penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. There are no infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld - the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Classification and valuation of imported goods, Redemption fine and penalty imposed

Classification and Valuation of Imported Goods:
The appellant questioned the classification and valuation of the imported goods, which were old and used garments. The declared value was enhanced to US$ 0.60 per kg under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. The Adjudicating Authority classified some goods under Tariff Item 63090000 and bales of quit under Tariff Item 94049019. The department did not provide evidence for further enhancement. The Tribunal held that the classification by the Adjudicating Authority was proper and did not require modification. Regarding valuation, no additional evidence was produced for further enhancement, so the redetermined value was deemed appropriate.

Redemption Fine and Penalty Imposed:
The issue of redemption fine and penalty was discussed in light of a previous case. The Tribunal cited a case involving old and serviceable garments imported without a required license. Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld due to the lack of a license. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to 10% of the ascertained value and penalty to 5%. The Adjudicating Authority considered detention charges, demurrage charges, and damage incurred on the goods. The redemption fine and penalty imposed were found to be sufficient based on a previous decision. The penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 were upheld, while there was no ground for penalty under Section 114A.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the impugned order. The classification, valuation, redemption fine, and penalties imposed were deemed appropriate and sufficient.