2024 (9) TMI 1427 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds Confiscation of Imported Used Clothing; Reduces Fines for Non-Compliance with Licensing Regulations.

Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata Versus M/s Harman Enterprises

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the impugned order regarding the import of old and used worn clothing. The Tribunal confirmed the ... Valuation of imported goods - old and used worn clothing, completely fumigated - enhancement of value - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - 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 '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%.' The redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondent to the tune of 10% & 5% respectively on the assessed value is sufficient. Therefore, 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 filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Issues:1. Enhanced value assessment of imported old and used worn clothing.2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty based on classification of imported goods.3. Applicability of Section 111(m) and Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Compliance with licensing requirements for restricted imports.5. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner.6. Upholding of the impugned order by the Tribunal.Analysis:1. The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against an order concerning the imported old and used worn clothing, which was subject to value enhancement, confiscation, and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The declared value was increased due to classification under Tariff Item No.63090000, a restricted import category.2. The Adjudicating Authority imposed redemption fine and penalty, which was later reduced by the Commissioner. The Tribunal referred to a previous case involving similar issues and highlighted the importance of compliance with licensing requirements for restricted imports under the Foreign Trade Policy.3. The Tribunal discussed the applicability of Section 111(m) and Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. It noted that confiscation under Section 111(d) was justified for the import of old and serviceable garments without the required import license. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the assessed value, respectively.4. The Tribunal emphasized the need for compliance with licensing requirements and the significance of accurate declaration of goods for import purposes. It acknowledged the failure to comply with licensing requirements but deemed the imposed redemption fine and penalty sufficient to serve the ends of justice.5. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue, upholding the impugned order and confirming the redemption fine and penalty at 10% and 5% of the assessed value. The decision was made based on the principles of justice and compliance with import regulations.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal, including value assessment, classification of imported goods, compliance with licensing requirements, and the imposition of fines and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962.