TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 49
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is common; therefore, all these have been taken up together for consideration and decision. The subject matter of these appeals mainly concerns with the classification and valuation of old and used tyres , imported by various appellant importers. 2. The appellants have been represented by Shri P. P. Jadeja, Ld. Consultant and Shri Amal Paresh Dave, Ld. Advocate, and the Revenue has been represented by Ld. AR, Dr. J. Nagori. 3. Based on the appeal memoranda and written submissions/synopses, the ld. Consultant and ld. Advocate interalia mainly submit as under:- (i) The appellants imported used Tyres and they have declared correctly as used Tyres . (ii) The appellants believed that classification of tyres should/could be under Chapter 40122090 (iii) The classification of goods has to be decided on the basis of conditions of goods at the time of its import. (iv) The conditions of goods at the time of import should decide classification and value of goods in question. (v) The appellants submit that visual examination of goods shows that about 60% to 70% tyres cannot be used as such and the remaining 30% to 40% maybe used on Indian Road....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the Rules of the Customs Valuation Rules (CVR) 1988. (ii) The importer submits that there is no reason or justification for rejecting transaction value with reliable evidences on one hand and on the other hand enhancement of value is not proved with any reliable evidences by the revenue. (iii) The enhancement of value of goods is incorrect and illegal, and consequently the proposed enhancement of value deserves to be set-aside. (iv) In case of M.U. Traders [2010 (252) ELT 574 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] CESTAT has held that enhancement of value without giving the details of contemporaneous import from the same country and the same size could not be upheld; that assessee purchased stocklot, some good quality tyres always would be found-Intention to misdeclare classification not upheld. (v) There is inherent contradiction in findings in OIO and for adopting the basis for valuation of goods in question. Assessable value is taken without MARKET INQUIREY of tyres and its residual life. (vii) Reliance is placed upon the following case laws:- (a) M/s M. U. Traders vs. Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar 2010 (252) ELT-574 (b) M/s G.K. Exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(49) ELT 228 (Tribunal) (b) Dunlop India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta 1990 (90) ELT 15 (S.C.) (c) Dunlop India Ltd. & Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others 1983 (13) ELT 1566 (S.C.) (d) Nanak Trading Co. & Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 1998 (98) ELT 381 (Tribunal) 5. We have carefully considered the facts of these appeal cases, the submissions of all the appellants and the Revenue and the case laws cited. 6. These appeals mainly concern with the following three issues:- (i) Classification of import goods, (ii) Valuation of import goods, and (iii) Imposition of penalties. 7. Firstly we take up the issue of classification of the subject goods namely old and used tyres . There is no dispute that the import goods are 'old and used tyres' . The goods have been examined 100% and it is found that certain percentage of goods can be used as such for respective vehicles i.e. Buses/Lorries or for auto vehicles but in general for the residual life of said tyres only and would find classification under Chapter Heading Nos. 40122010 and 40122020 as per their use in the respective vehicle....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f their import and clearance for home consumption. In this case, we are not concerned that after the clearance, the importers would make repairs on the tyres or get them retreaded. We cannot force the importers to do repairs or retreading on the same; therefore, the right classification for the remaining category of tyres, which cannot be used as such on the vehicles/autovehicles considering their current condition, would be under CTH No. 40122090, which is in the category of "Other" . Once the remaining tyres, which as per Revenue requires repairs/retreading before their use, have been held to be classified under CTH No. 40122090, as per the Import Policy, there is no requirement of any import license for their import. The Customs (Revenue), therefore, cannot have Import Policy Objection for their clearance for home consumption. 8. In respect of valuation, the appellants mainly argue that the transaction value is irregularly rejected by the Revenue. The appellants state that the goods have been purchased as stock lot and on per ton (weight) basis. In other words, these goods have been purchased aboard, mainly as scrap. Revenue, interalia, argues that they have arrived at their ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue interalia mentions that harsh penalties are required to be imposed as there has been clear-cut violation of Import Policy by the importers. The ld. Consultant and the ld. advocate for the appellants on the other hand state that heavy penalties have been imposed by the adjudicating authority and the cases deserve nominal penalty and fine, if at all it is required to be imposed. 9.1. In case of penalties, we are of the considered view that the Import Policy has been grossly violated and goods collectively (where they are usable as such) are under the restricted category and therefore said goods are required to be confiscated and the redemption fine(s) are to be imposed after considering the saleability and the profit margin of the goods in question. In case of the other category of goods that is where they find the classification as 'Other' under CTH No. 42122090 and are allowed freely under Import Policy, they might still be used for Lorries and Auto Vehicles etc, but only after repairs or retreading. Such factors, therefore, are required to be considered, when penalties are imposed on the respective appellants. However, the adjudicating authority has to keep the o....