9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 82X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly stated are as under:- The appellant imported consignment of worn clothing classified under Customs Tariff Heading No.63 090000. The primary adjudicating authority found that the impugned goods were restricted for import and the appellant did not have an import licence and therefore the goods were liable to be confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The primary adjudicating authority also noted that the Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch, after conducting enquiries had suggested a minimum floor price of US$ 0.80 per KG for such goods. The primary adjudicating authority also found that the Special Investigation and Intelligence Branch has conducted market enquiries to ascertain the margin of profit in resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lue and that has not been done in the present case. It cited the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Eicher tractors Ltd versus CC Mumbai [2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC)]. It also stated that worn clothing cannot be treated to be restricted. 5. The ld. Departmental Representative supported the impugned order stating that the appellant was well aware that the goods were restricted and therefore the redemption fine and penalty are in order. 6. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that in this case the appellant had voluntarily foregone the requirement of a Show Cause Notice and accepted in writing the valuation of US$ 0.80 per KG which the primary adjudicating authority determined on the basis of the recommendation of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed for no Show Cause Notice, could/would have invited allegation of harassment and delay in clearance of goods. When Show Cause Notice is expressly foregone and the valuation is consented, the violation of principles of natural justice cannot be alleged. The judgement in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra) cited by the appellant was with regard to classification of goods and it essentially stated that even when the goods were cleared under a classification consented to by the assessee, the assessee was not debarred from seeking refund. The above judgement did not in any way mean that the refund should necessarily be granted only because the assessee questioned the classification earlier agreed to by it. The refund will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lkata [2004 (164) ELT 113 (Tri Del.)] wherein it was stated that letter written by one Commissioner to another indicating value of various brands of loudspeakers depending on their size arrived at after considering prices observed in trade and from other sources, such letter can be relied upon for valuing speakers under section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. We find that the said observation does not have an implication that the value indicated by the other Commissioner should be accepted in disregard to the said Rules. Further, the said observation has been made in respect of standard new items like speakers while the goods involved in the present case are worn garments whose value depends upon the condition, quality and nature of the goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
