Goods cannot face double adjudication; penalties set aside. Consumer goods with under-declared value upheld for confiscation. Appeal outcomes adjusted.

The Tribunal found that goods previously adjudicated could not be subjected to double adjudication, setting aside confiscation and penalties. Goods classified as consumer goods with under-declared value were upheld for confiscation. Transaction value was rejected due to goods being supplied free of charge. Penalties on individuals were adjusted and set aside based on jurisdictional issues. Appeal Nos. C/1867/94 and C/1807/94 were partially allowed, while Appeal No. C/1776/95 was fully allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Double adjudication of goods.
2. Classification and usability of imported goods.
3. Valuation and transaction value of goods.
4. Imposition of penalties on individuals.

Summary:

1. Double Adjudication of Goods:
The appellants contended that the goods had already been subjected to adjudication once and could not be subjected to adjudication again. The Tribunal found that the goods were indeed subjected to adjudication earlier, as indicated by a rubber stamp on the bill of entry. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Mohan Meakin Ltd. v. CCE, the Tribunal held that the goods could not be confiscated again and set aside the confiscation and penalties under Clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act.

2. Classification and Usability of Imported Goods:
The Collector had ordered confiscation on the grounds that the goods were consumer goods and their value was grossly under-declared. The appellants argued that the goods were supplied free of charge because they did not conform to U.S. standards and were not usable as respirators or earplugs. The Tribunal found that the goods were indeed usable as respirators and earplugs, despite not meeting U.S. standards, and upheld their classification as consumer goods. The confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act was confirmed.

3. Valuation and Transaction Value of Goods:
The appellants contended that the transaction value should be accepted. The Tribunal noted that the goods were supplied free of charge, and therefore, the transaction value could not be applied as per Rule 4 of the Valuation Rules. The Tribunal upheld the enhanced value based on the statements of Jayant Maru and confirmed the confiscation under Clause (m) of Section 111 of the Act.

4. Imposition of Penalties on Individuals:
The penalty on Jayant Maru was reduced to Rs. 25.00 lakhs, considering the value of the respirators. The contention that the penalty was wrongly imposed on him as the proprietor instead of a partner was dismissed. The penalty on Himant Tank was set aside as the Customs Act, 1962 does not have extraterritorial jurisdiction.

Conclusion:
- Appeal Nos. C/1867/94 and C/1807/94 were allowed in part.
- Appeal No. C/1776/95 was allowed.

---