9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 948X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und in the consignments have been classified under Tariff Item 94049019 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - It is observed that there is no valid reason given in the grounds of appeal for any revised classification. Accordingly, the classification arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority is proper and doesn't require any modification. Valuation of the goods imported - HELD THAT:- The goods were used and worn garments. The declared value was enhanced to US$ 0.60 per kg under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 and the department has not produced any additional evidence for further enhancement. Accordingly, the redetermined value doesn't require any modification or further enhancement. Redemption f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .3,00,000/- Penalty under Section 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - It is found that there is no ground available in this case to impose penalty under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962. There are no infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld - the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. - MR. MURALIDHAR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. K. ANPAZHAKAN MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Tariq Suliaman, Authorized Representative for the Appellant None, for the Respondent ORDER The Revenue is in appeals against the impugned order. 2. The facts of the case are that the respondent imported old and used garments, completely fumigated which were assessed after value enhancement, confiscation and imposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant has questioned the Classification and valuation of the goods. But, we observe that the department has not categorically mentioned what should be the Classification sought by them or what is the value proposed. In the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has classified some goods under Tariff Item 63090000 and the bales of quit found in the consignments have been classified under Tariff Item 94049019 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. We observe that there is no valid reason given in the grounds of appeal for any revised classification. Accordingly, we hold that the classification arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority is proper and doesn't require any modification. 5. Regarding valuation of the go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be the finding on the description or value, Section 111(m) is not liable to be invoked in the absence of a declaration. 5 . Confiscation under Section 111(d) has been invoked for import of old and serviceable garments without an import licence as prescribed under Chapter 2 of the Foreign Trade Policy. Want of such licence is not disputed by the appellants. Consequently, confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 in the impugned order cannot be faulted. Release of confiscated goods to the importer is contingent upon fine in lieu imposed under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. The redemption fine is not, in terms of the statute, permitted to exceed the market price of the goods and the undertaking of a survey is not im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs had agreed during the personal hearing conducted by the then Commissioner of Customs (I), that the impugned goods were either old and used garments other than rags or they were not mutilated as per the norms laid down in this regard. It is on this agreement for the nature/description of goods, that we have to proceed further in this case. As regards the margin of profit, a market survey was done whose salient features are as follows : in the impugned order. 6 . Though the appellants question the margin of profit and the validity of market survey, there is no serious resistance to the ascertained value. 7 . Considering the various issues and submissions made and the failure of the original authority to comply with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
