Mutilation norms for imported garments upheld, with confiscation and redemption fine sustained on customs examination findings.

Imported garments declared as pre-mutilated rags were held liable to confiscation because examination showed serviceable garments and mutilation that did not comply with the prescribed norms under the relevant public notice. The Tribunal accepted that the mutilation requirements were binding for import clearance and upheld confiscation of the offending goods. The redemption fine was also sustained because the appellate authority had assessed it by reference to landed cost and margin of profit, and no infirmity was found in that method or quantum.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported garments, found to be cut otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed mutilation norms, were liable to confiscation in their entirety or only to the extent of the offending portion. (ii) Whether the redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/- fixed by the appellate authority called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the imported garments, found to be cut otherwise than in accordance with the prescribed mutilation norms, were liable to confiscation in their entirety or only to the extent of the offending portion.

Analysis: The goods were declared as pre-mutilated old synthetic/woollen rags, but examination showed that part of the consignment contained serviceable garments and that the garments were not cut in the manner required by Public Notice No. 86/94 dated 20-07-1994. The Tribunal noted the admitted position that the garments did not satisfy the prescribed mutilation norms and accepted the view that the public notice norms were binding for import clearance.

Conclusion: The confiscation and the consequential adverse order were upheld in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/- fixed by the appellate authority called for interference.

Analysis: The appellate authority had considered the landed cost and margin of profit, worked out at 30% of the landed cost, before fixing the redemption fine. No infirmity was found in that assessment, and the Tribunal saw no basis to reduce or interfere with the amount.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was sustained against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: Both appeals failed and the impugned appellate order was maintained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods do not comply with the prescribed mutilation norms, the customs authority may sustain confiscation and impose a redemption fine assessed with reference to the goods' landed cost and margin of profit.

---