Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (6) TMI 777

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ound that there is no evidence available on record to reclassify the goods as other than old and used garments , as claimed by the Revenue. Accordingly, the classification of the goods determined by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order is upheld. Valuation of the goods - HELD THAT:- The goods were old and used garments, for which the general practice of valuation adopted during the relevant period was at the rate of US$ 0.60 per kg(CIF). The adjudicating authority has already enhanced the value from US$ 0.55 to US$ 0.60 per kg(CIF). Accordingly, there are no infirmity in the value re determined by the adjudicating authority and hence uphold the same. Redemption fine and penalty - HELD THAT:- The redemption fine and penalty impos .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... enhanced from US$ 0.55 per kg to US$ 0.60 per kg (CIF) and redemption fine and penalty were also imposed on the ground that the old and used worn clothing articles are classifiable under Tariff Item No.63090000 of the First Schedule of the Act and is restricted item for import as per Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, read with ITC HS Classification of import and export items 2009-2014. Import of goods under Tariff Item No.63090000 is restricted and their import is allowed only against the valid specific license. 4. Aggrieved against the said order, the Department has filed this appeal before this Tribunal. 5. In their grounds-of-appeal, the Revenue has inter alia contended as under: - i. Most of the articles found showed no signs .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed garments classifying the same under Customs Tariff Heading 6309. We find that there is no evidence available on record to reclassify the goods as other than old and used garments , as claimed by the Revenue. Accordingly, we uphold the classification of the goods determined by the adjudicating authority in the impugned order. 8.2 Regarding valuation of the goods, Revenue has proposed that valuation is to be done as per Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules. We observe that the goods were old and used garments, for which the general practice of valuation adopted during the relevant period was at the rate of US$ 0.60 per kg(CIF). The adjudicating authority has already enhanced the value from US$ 0.55 to US$ 0.60 per kg(CIF). Accordingly, we .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... scription 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 improper. However, such a survey, more .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 the direction in remand to disclose the margin of profit that prompted the fine a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates