9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the department is entitled to confiscate the entire consignment of goods when part of the goods is found to be liable to confiscation. 2. Whether the penalty imposed should be limited to the offending portion of the consignment. Analysis: 1. The case involved the import of garments declared as pre-mutilated old Synthetic/Woollen rags, where part of the consignment was non-mutilated serviceable garments. The adjudicating authority confiscated the non-mutilated garments and imposed a redemption fine. Both the importers and the Revenue appealed, with the Revenue's appeal being allowed based on the garments not meeting the norms of Public Notice No. 86/94. The appellants contested this decision, citing the Kerala High Court's judgment on the norms of mutilation under the public notice. The Tribunal noted that the garments were not cut according to the prescribed norms and upheld the Commissioner of Customs' decision. 2. In the appeal filed by another party, the contention was regarding the redemption fine imposed. The Commissioner of Customs calculated the redemption fine based on the margin of profit and landed cost, setting it at Rs. 60,000. The appellant argued against this fine, but the Tribunal found the calculation reasonable, considering the profit margin. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the decisions regarding the confiscation of non-mutilated garments and the redemption fine. This judgment clarifies the authority of the department to confiscate goods not meeting prescribed norms and the imposition of penalties limited to the offending portion of the consignment. The decision reinforces the importance of adhering to specified guidelines in importation processes and highlights the significance of compliance with public notices and regulations to avoid confiscation and penalties.
|
