2024 (8) TMI 675 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Allows Appeal to Proceed, Dismisses Stay Application; Upholds Reduced Redemption Fine and Penalty for Compliance.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, allowing the case to proceed. It rejected the Revenue's stay application, finding no merit. The ... Reduction in the quantum of redemption fine and penalty - import of old and used worn clothing, completely fumigated restricted item - enhancement of value - HELD THAT:- This issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of VENUS TRADERS, RAINBOW INTERNATIONAL, AL-YASEEN ENTERPRISES, GLOBE INTERNATIONAL, KRISHNA EXPORT CORPORATION, PRECISION IMPEX, BMC SPINNERS PVT. LTD., SHIVAM TRADERS, LEELA WOOLEN MILLS, M.U. TEXTILES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) MUMBAI [2018 (11) TMI 625 - CESTAT MUMBAI], wherein this Tribunal has observed 'However, the paucity of evidence and the negligible scope for ascertainment at this stage deters us from doing so. In the light of the admitted failure to comply with the licensing requirements, we uphold the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962. However, it is our opinion that the ends of justice would be served by reducing the redemption fine to 10% of the ascertained value and penalty to 5%.' It is held that the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondent to the tune of 10% & 5% respectively on the assessed value is sufficient - the redemption fine and penalty confirmed by the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) are sufficient to meet the end of justice. There are no infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld - appeal of Revenue dismissed. Issues:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.2. Stay application by the Revenue regarding Order-in-Appeal.3. Classification and valuation of imported goods.4. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.5. Compliance with licensing requirements and Customs Act, 1962.Detailed Analysis:1. The Tribunal satisfactorily explained the reason for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal and subsequently condoned the delay. The application for condonation of delay was allowed, indicating a lenient approach towards procedural delays in filing appeals.2. The Revenue filed an application for staying the operation of Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) of Customs, Kolkata. The Tribunal, upon reviewing the impugned order, found it not to be illegal or without jurisdiction. The Revenue's stay petition was deemed routine and lacking merit, resulting in its rejection.3. The case involved the importation of old and used worn clothing, which were subject to value enhancement, confiscation, and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The issue revolved around the classification of the imported goods under a restricted tariff item, leading to the assessment of redemption fine and penalty by the Adjudicating Authority.4. The Adjudicating Authority imposed redemption fine and penalty at specific rates on the assessed value, which was later reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) in response to the appellant's appeal. The Tribunal reviewed similar cases and upheld the decision to reduce the redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the assessed value, respectively.5. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving similar issues to justify its decision regarding the redemption fine and penalty. It emphasized the importance of compliance with licensing requirements and the Customs Act, 1962, in determining the appropriate fines and penalties. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the redemption fine and penalty, dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue.Overall, the judgment focused on procedural aspects such as condonation of delay, the legality of the impugned order, proper classification and valuation of imported goods, and compliance with relevant laws and policies governing importation. The Tribunal's decision to reduce the redemption fine and penalty was based on precedents and considerations of justice and compliance.