2023 (9) TMI 1269 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - old and used worn clothing - restricted goods or not - enhancement of value - confiscation - redemption fine - 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. Against the confirmed duties and the penalties the Redemption Fine imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Respondent has not filed any appeals - 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 filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involves the appeal by the Revenue against the impugned order regarding the import of old and used worn clothing, value enhancement, confiscation, and imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Details of the Judgment:

1. Value Enhancement and Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty:
The declared value of the imported old and used worn clothing was enhanced from US$ 0.45 per kg to US$ 0.60 per kg, with redemption fine and penalty imposed due to classification under Tariff Item No.63090000 and import restrictions. The Adjudicating Authority imposed redemption fine and penalty at rates of 19.5% and 7.8% of the assessed value, respectively. The Revenue sought enhancement of these fines and penalties.

2. Legal Observations:
The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was noted that confiscation under Section 111(d) was justified for import of old garments without a required import license. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine to 10% of the ascertained value and penalty to 5%, considering the failure to comply with licensing requirements.

3. Decision:
In line with the previous decision, the Tribunal upheld the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, deeming it sufficient for justice. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

This judgment highlights the legal considerations surrounding value enhancement, redemption fines, and penalties in cases of import violations, emphasizing compliance with licensing requirements and the authority's discretion in determining appropriate fines and penalties.