2023 (6) TMI 155 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - import of old and used worn clothing completely fumigated - restricted goods or not - rejection of declared value - enhancement of value - contemporaneous imports not available - reduction in the quantum of redemption fine and penalty - HELD THAT - For import of impugned goods that during the impugned period, there was a restriction for import of the impugned goods and no market price is available to ascertain the import price of the impugned goods. Further, NIDB data cannot be the basis to enhance the declared value in the absence of any corroborative evidence or contemporaneous import. In that circumstances, the rejection of enhanced value by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order is correct. In the case of NAVPAD ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN 2008 (3) TMI 604 - CESTAT, BANGALORE , it has been held that there is no evidence brought out by the Revenue to show that the appellant has paid more than what he has been declared to the Customs. Therefore, in such circumstances, the Tribunal took a view to impose fine and penalty at 10% 5% respectively. As the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon various judicial pronouncements in the impugned order for reduction of fine and penalty. There are no merits in the Revenue s appeals, therefore, the same are dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
The case involves the import of old and used worn clothing, assessment after value enhancement, confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties on the respondent. The main issues include the reassessment of declared value, classification under Tariff Item 63090000, restrictions on import, rejection of enhanced value, and reduction of fine and penalty.

Reassessment of Declared Value:
The adjudicating authority enhanced the unit CIF value of the imported goods and imposed redemption fine and personal penalties. The respondent accepted the enhanced value to avoid demurrage and got the goods cleared from Customs by paying excess duty, fine, and penalties. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed that the goods were classifiable under Tariff Item 63090000 and subject to restrictions on import. However, it was held that the rejection of the transaction value by the adjudicating authority was arbitrary without proper justification. The Commissioner relied on Board's Circular and set aside the enhanced value, reducing the redemption fine and penalty percentages.

Classification and Restrictions on Import:
The goods were classified under Tariff Item 63090000, which is a restricted item for import as per the Foreign Trade Policy. Import of these goods required a valid specific license, and failure to provide such a license led to confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) found the enhancement of value not justified and relied on various decisions to reduce the fine and penalty percentages.

Rejection of Enhanced Value:
During the arguments, it was noted that there was a restriction on import during the relevant period, and no market price was available to ascertain the import price. The rejection of the enhanced value by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) was considered correct due to the absence of corroborative evidence or contemporaneous import data. The Tribunal upheld the decision based on the lack of evidence supporting the declared value.

Reduction of Fine and Penalty:
Citing a previous case, the Tribunal emphasized the lack of evidence to show overpayment by the appellant to Customs. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) relied on judicial pronouncements to reduce the fine and penalty percentages. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the decision to reduce the fine and penalty against the respondent, upholding the impugned order.

Conclusion:
The Revenue's appeals were dismissed as no merits were found in their arguments. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the rejection of enhanced value, reduction of fine and penalty percentages, and overall outcome of the case.