2023 (12) TMI 574 - AT - Customs

Enhancement of redemption fine and penalty - Import of old and used worn clothing, completely fumigated - restricted item or not - 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 the paucity of evidence and the negligible scope for ascertainment at this stage deters us from doing so. In the light of the admitted failure to comply with the licensing requirements, we uphold the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962. However, it is our opinion that the ends of justice would be served by reducing the redemption fine to 10% of the ascertained value and penalty to 5%. Against the confirmed duties and the penalties the Redemption Fine imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Respondent has not filed any appeals. Following the cited decision of this Tribunal, it is held that 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.

Summary

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

Enhancement of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The Revenue appealed against the impugned order which enhanced the declared value of imported old clothing and imposed redemption fine and penalty. The Adjudicating Authority had imposed redemption fine and penalty based on the classification of the goods under Tariff Item No.63090000 and non-compliance with licensing requirements. The Tribunal considered previous case law and observed that confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act was justified for import without the required license. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine to 10% and penalty to 5% of the ascertained value, in the interest of justice.

Compliance with Licensing Requirements:
The Tribunal noted the failure to comply with licensing requirements for the import of goods classified under Tariff Item No.63090000. Despite the appellants' objections to the margin of profit and market survey, the Tribunal found the ascertained value acceptable. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act due to the admitted lack of proper licensing. The redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority were deemed sufficient, and the Tribunal upheld the same, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, confirming the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondents for importing old and used worn clothing. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the decision and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court.