9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (9) TMI 195 - AT - CustomsValuation of imported goods - old and used worn clothing, completely fumigated - restricted item - 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. Against the confirmed duties and the penalties the Redemption Fine imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Respondent has not filed any appeals - 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 - appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include enhancement of redemption fine and penalty imposed on imported old and used worn clothing, classification under Tariff Item No.63090000, applicability of Section 111(m) and Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, compliance with licensing requirements, and the adequacy of the redemption fine and penalty. Enhancement of Redemption Fine and Penalty: The respondent imported old and used worn clothing, leading to the imposition of redemption fine and penalty due to the enhancement of declared value and classification under Tariff Item No.63090000. The Adjudicating Authority imposed redemption fine and penalty at specific rates, prompting the Revenue to seek enhancement. However, the Tribunal, considering previous case law, found that the redemption fine and penalty imposed were sufficient for the ends of justice. Consequently, the redemption fine and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority were upheld, and the appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed. Applicability of Section 111(m) and Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962: The Tribunal referenced a previous case where it was observed that Section 111(m) should not be invoked when goods are not correspondingly declared. Confiscation under Section 111(d) was justified for the import of old and serviceable garments without the required import license. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation under Section 111(d) due to the lack of dispute regarding the absence of the license. The Tribunal also noted the importance of complying with licensing requirements and determined that the ends of justice would be served by reducing the redemption fine and penalty percentages. Compliance with Licensing Requirements: The Tribunal emphasized the significance of complying with licensing requirements, specifically mentioning the need for a valid specific license for the import of goods classified under Tariff Item No.63090000. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the lack of the required license. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine and penalty percentages to serve the ends of justice, considering the admitted failure to comply with licensing requirements. Adequacy of Redemption Fine and Penalty: Following the decision in a previous case, the Tribunal determined that the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority were sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Despite the appellants questioning the margin of profit and market survey validity, the Tribunal found no serious resistance to the ascertained value. The Tribunal upheld the redemption fine and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority, concluding that there was no infirmity in the impugned order.
|
