2015 (3) TMI 164 - AT - Customs

Denial of benefit of Board's Circular No. 20/2011-Cus. dated 15.11.2011 - Enhancement in declared value - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that - On plain reading of the Board s Circular, it is seen that the cutting waste or fabric trims would continuous length with maximum width restriction upto ten inches. In the present case, there is no dispute that the cutting waste is not in a continuous length. The learned counsel for appellant mainly thrust upon her argument that the width is below 10 inches. She has not made any submission that the goods are in running length. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the goods do not have any continuous length. It is also seen that the appellant have not declared the width in their invoice or in the Bill of Entry. In the invoice it is only mentioned Fabric Waste (cutting waste) . The DRI officers upon examination of the goods found that it is a cut and waste to small pieces of cuts and bits. Hence, in our considered view the appellant is not eligible to get the benefit of the Board s Circular dated 15.4.2011. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Classification of goods under CTH 6310 1020, Customs Valuation Rules, Confiscation of goods, Imposition of fine and penalty, Interpretation of Board's Circular

Classification of goods under CTH 6310 1020:
The appellant imported goods declared as 'Fabric Waste (cut waste)' under CTH 6310 1020. However, during investigation, it was found that the goods were 'cut pieces/remnant' not meeting the continuous length and width restrictions specified in the Board's Circular. The adjudicating authority denied the benefit of the Circular, enhanced the declared value, and imposed penalties for importing goods without a license. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.

Customs Valuation Rules and Confiscation of goods:
The adjudicating authority enhanced the declared value of the goods under Rule 5 of the Customs Valuation Rules and confiscated the goods under Section 111(b) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 due to non-compliance with the Board's Circular and importing goods without a license. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal against these actions.

Imposition of fine and penalty:
The appellant argued that the imported goods' width was below 10 inches, as per the Board's Circular, and therefore should be covered by the Circular. The appellant contended that the penalties imposed were excessive, considering they were a small entrepreneur. The Revenue authorities, however, supported the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in this regard.

Interpretation of Board's Circular:
The Tribunal analyzed the relevant portion of the Board's Circular, which allowed import of trim cutting waste or fabric trims of continuous length with a maximum width restriction of up to ten inches without a license. The Tribunal noted that the goods in question were not in continuous length, and the width was not declared in the invoice or Bill of Entry. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant did not qualify for the Circular's benefits due to the lack of continuous length and proper declaration of goods.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order but reduced the fine and penalty imposed on the appellant. The appeal was disposed of with the fine reduced to &8377; 1,50,000 and the penalty reduced to &8377; 50,000.