2023 (6) TMI 910 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of imported goods - old and used worn clothing, completely fumigated - enhancement of value - imposition of redemption fine and penalty - 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 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. 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 - appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the enhancement of redemption fine and penalty imposed on imported old and used worn clothing, the applicability of Section 111(m) and Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, compliance with licensing requirements under Chapter 2 of the Foreign Trade Policy, and the validity of market survey for determining the margin of profit.

Details of the Judgment:

Enhancement of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The appellant imported old and used worn clothing, which were assessed after value enhancement, confiscation, and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The declared value was enhanced, and redemption fine and penalty were imposed due to the classification of the goods under Tariff Item No.63090000, which is a restricted item for import. The Adjudicating Authority imposed redemption fine and penalty at specific rates, with exceptions where goods were not available. The Revenue appealed for the enhancement of redemption fine and penalty.

Applicability of Section 111(m) and Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was observed that invoking Section 111(m) for goods not corresponding in value or particulars with the entry made is not in conformity with law. Confiscation under Section 111(d) was justified for the import of old and serviceable garments without the required import license as per the Foreign Trade Policy. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation under Section 111(d) but reduced the redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the ascertained value, respectively.

Compliance with Licensing Requirements:
The judgment highlighted the importance of complying with licensing requirements under the Foreign Trade Policy for restricted imports. The failure to have the necessary license led to the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Validity of Market Survey for Determining Margin of Profit:
The Tribunal acknowledged the appellants' concerns regarding the margin of profit and the validity of the market survey but noted the lack of serious resistance to the ascertained value. Despite the failure of the original authority to comply with directions in the remand order, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) and adjusted the redemption fine and penalty percentages to ensure justice.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority as sufficient for the ends of justice. The impugned order was upheld, with no found infirmity, and the appeals by the Revenue were consequently dismissed.