TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 560
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....late authority has upheld the order of the adjudicating authority dated 16-12-2010 wherein he had classified the goods imported by the appellant under CTH 97050090 and has confiscated the same under the provisions of section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 90,000/-. As regards the value of the goods, the assessing authority has directed that the assessments be kept provisional as the value of Rs. 9,62,713/- declared is only notional. He has further imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the appellant Farokh S. Todywalla under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 2. The facts relevant to the case are briefly as follows. The appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ents be kept provisional in as much as the value declared is only a notional value. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed on the appellant. On appeal, the lower appellate authority upheld the order of the lower adjudicating authority and rejected the appeal. Hence the appellants are before us. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant made the following submissions. (1) To merit classification under CTH 9705, the goods should be "Collections and collector's pieces of historical, ethnographic, paleonotological or archaeological interest or numismatic interest'. The goods under import are not 'collections' or collector's pieces'. Merely because the goods have been procured from a numismatist, it cannot be presumed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nfirmed, the appellant should be permitted to re-export the goods. 4. The ld. Dy. Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue while supporting the orders passed by the lower authorities submits that in his statement recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act. Sri. Todywala has admitted that he procured the old coins and medals from collectors and he also has a collection of old coins and notes and these are also put up for auction. He has further admitted that he had visited London in September/October, 2009 and had personally selected the coins and other items and has selected mostly old Indian coins as they have a big market in India. He has also admitted that the goods imported by him are old and used collector's items and woul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., ethnographic or numismatic interest" "9706 Antiques of an age exceeding one hundred years" Chapter Note 3 (p) to Chapter 71 specifically excludes collector's pieces (heading 97.05) or antiques of an age exceeding 100 years (heading 97.06) from the scope of Chapter 71. Similarly note to Chapter 74 also excludes articles more specifically covered elsewhere in the nomenclature from the scope of the said chapter. 5.2 In the consignment/sale invoice dated 16/10/2009 issued by the foreign supplier Andre P. de Clermont, Numismatist, the goods are described as - "Old & used- many over 100 years old - assorted silverware/table ware, assorted silver medallion of Indian and foreign origin, assorted silver coins of Indian or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the goods merit classification under Chapter 71 or 74. Goods falling under these chapter are traded by dealers in these goods and are for use as such. They are not sold by numismatists of through auctions and they also do not have any historic or numismatic interests. Therefore, the classification of these goods under Chapter 71 or 74 based on the metal content is clearly ruled out. In any case, Chapter Note 3(p) to Chapter 71 and Chapter note to 74 clearly exclude these items from the scope and coverage of the articles falling under the said chapters. 5.3 The next question is whether these goods under importation merit classification under CTH 97.05 as "collections or collector's pieces" or under CTH 97.06 as "antiques". As regar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t on record that the appellant did not have the requisite licence and the goods are liable to confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act. In view of this legal position, the confiscation and the option to redeem the goods on payment of fine ordered by the adjudicating authority cannot be faulted at all. The fine of Rs. 90,000/- imposed on the appellant for redemption cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable when compared to the declared value of Rs. 9,62,713/-. Since the goods are liable to confiscation, imposition of penalty under section 112 (a) is also justified as no mens rea is required to be proved for imposition of penalty under the said section. Further the penalty imposed is only nominal at Rs. 10,000/- and the same....