2023 (7) TMI 836 - AT - Customs

Amount of Redemption fine and penalty - Valuation of imported old and used worn clothing articles- enhancement of value - classifiable under Tariff Item No.63090000 of the First Schedule of the Act -s restricted item for import as per Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 - 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. Thus, 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 - appeal of Revenue dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include value enhancement of imported goods, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, classification of goods under Tariff Item No.63090000, restrictions on import under Foreign Trade Policy, invocation of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, confiscation of goods, determination of redemption fine and penalty, compliance with licensing requirements, and the decision on appeal by the Revenue.

Value Enhancement and Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The respondent 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 from US$ 0.20 per kg to US$ 0.60 per kg, with redemption fine and penalty imposed due to the classification of the goods under Tariff Item No.63090000 and restrictions on import as per the Foreign Trade Policy. The adjudicating authority imposed redemption fine and penalty at the rates of 19.5% and 7.8% of the assessed value, respectively. The Revenue appealed for enhancement of redemption fine and penalty, which was considered in the judgment.

Invocation of Section 111(m) and Confiscation of Goods:
The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving proceedings against imports initiated before the filing of bills of entry. It was noted that confiscation under Section 111(d) was invoked for the import of 'old and serviceable garments' without a required import license as per the Foreign Trade Policy. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to the lack of the necessary license, and emphasized that release of confiscated goods is subject to a fine in lieu imposed under the Act.

Compliance with Licensing Requirements and Reduction of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The Tribunal acknowledged the failure of the original authority to comply with the direction in the remand order regarding disclosure of the margin of profit for the imposition of fine and penalty. Despite considering remitting the matter back for compliance, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to 10% of the ascertained value and the penalty to 5%, upholding the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The decision was based on the need to serve the ends of justice and the admitted failure to comply with licensing requirements.

Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the impugned order and upheld the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The appeals filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and the redemption fine and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority were upheld.