2015 (12) TMI 1483

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... stricted subject to import licence. Appellant was well aware that the impugned goods required licence to import as in its own case CESTAT Final Order No.151/2006, dated 07.04.2006 had upheld confiscation of worn clothing for the same reason. Therefore, the confiscation as ordered by the primary adjudicating authority is legally sustainable as the appellant did not have any import licence. We also .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing No.63 09 vide Bill of Entry No.114169, dated 06.01.2009. The primary adjudicating authority found that the impugned goods were restricted for import. Noting that appellant vide letter dated 29.01.2009 admitted that it did not have any import licence for the impugned goods, he passed the primary adjudication order confiscating the impugned goods under sections 111 (d) ibid but gave an option to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s of both sides. We find that in this case appellant had voluntarily foregone the requirement of a Show Cause Notice. The primary adjudicating authority accepted the declared value and therefore there is no dispute about valuation. 5. It is, however, a fact that the impugned goods are not freely importable. Even the ITC (HS) classification for worn clothing and other worn articles against class .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X