TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 776
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....conditioning to be undertaken in respect of clothing which does not require any repairing/recycling and which require only cleaning, pressing and packing. In the case of garments which require repair and the process of reconditioning would comprise alteration, sewing before cleaning and pressing. The project report clearly stated that after reprocessing, the aforesaid goods would be re-exported. He pointed out that the Development Commissioner has granted permission dated 29/09/2000 for the manufacture of "Reconditioned clothing" and for processing "Rags". 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that in May, 2009, M/s Texool Wastesavers imported "old and used clothing rags" and filed Bill of entry bearing no. 1763 dated 25/05/2009 alongwith the foreign supplier‟s invoice. As per the invoice, following was revealed: (a) The goods were imported in two containers bearing nos. MSKU 9258007 and MSKU 9441168 containing 47 bales and 41 bales respectively, (b) Some of the bales were tied with plastic strips, some were given support of paper carton waste inside the strips and some were given support of plastic woven fabrics inside the strips, (c) All the bales in conta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by manufacturers and departmental stores which may be new and in respect of which no repairs are required. He pointed out that the T-shirts in the 26 bales in question were of assorted size, colors and types, some having round neck, v- neck, some of them were unbranded and other had illegible or cut brand labels. He pointed out that some had holes, etc and some had stickers with the word "Irregular‟ printed on it. He further pointed out that the manner of packing of goods viz in bales with plastic strips. 2.1 Learned Counsel pointed out that in this context the Commissioner has erred in holding that the goods are new and unused and did not require re-conditioning. He pointed out that the Joint Commissioner who was appointed by the Commissionerate to examine the goods has in his report dated 16/08/2010 found on a random examination that the T-shirts which were improperly stitched, had holes, dyeing defects and disturbed or broken knits. He argued that the Commissioner had erred in proceeding with the examination report dated 16/08/2010, showed that 95% of the shirts were free from dyeing and weaving defects. He argued that only two to four shirts in each bundle was examine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... goods: S1. Items for manufacture Annual Capacity 1 Fiber from Virgin material 1350.00MT 2. Reconditioned Clothing 1500.00MT 3. Rags 3825.00MT The appellant filed a Bill of Entry in the office of the Dy. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla Free Trade Zone, Gandhidham, claiming exemption under Rule 26 of the SEZ Rules, 2007. The officers of Customs House, Kandla carried out detailed examination of goods at A.V. Joshi CFS, Gandhidham. During the examination, it was found that out of 47 bales declared as "old and used clothing rags", 26 bales were found to contain new/unused branded/unbranded T-shirts of different colours and sizes. The goods were placed in seizure for confiscation under section 111(m) of the Custom Act, 1962 also as the goods were not accompanied by pre-shipment certificate prescribed by the Public Notice no. 12 (RE-2001)/1997-2002 dated 03/05/2001. After issue of Show Cause notice, the market value of the T-shirts was ascertained. The 27 bales of alleged new T-Shirts were confiscated under section 111 (d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The market value of the said goods was revised to 1.44 crores at the rate of 150 per piece and redemption fin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... speedy adjudication. The Commissioner is directed to consider this request for removal to SEZ pending adjudication and further we also direct the Commissioner to adjudicate the issue afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellant within sixty days of the receipt of this order. Needless to say that the appellants shall be given opportunity to present their case before the matter is adjudicated afresh. The appellants are directed to co-operate fully with the Commissioner for speedy adjudication without further delay." In the remand proceeding, the Commissioner has ordered confiscation of the said goods alleged to be the new T-shirts and the same were confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act. The market value of the said goods were fixed at Rs. 91 lakhs approximately @ 95/- per piece of cotton T-shirts and Rs. 110/- per piece for polyester T-shirts. The goods were offered for redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 25 lakhs. The balanced 21 bales in the same container and 41 bales in a different container were also confiscated under section 119 of the Customs Act and under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 respectively and were offered for redemption o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and alterations, sewing buttons etc will be carried out before sending to the cleaning department for cleaning and pressing. This will be "RE-EXPORTED" as "RE-CONDITIONED CLOTHING" 4.2 The appellants are taking shelter of this proposal in the project report which they claim, has been approved in the letter of permission. Though we find that the said project report placed before us is un-signed and is not addressed to any particular authority Revenue has not disputed. In these circumstances, we rely on this project report. From the said project report, it is seen that the appellants were permitted to import garments that are almost new but could be out of fashion in terms of time as far as the country of production is concerned. The entire case of Revenue is based on the allegation that the part of the consignment was almost new and, therefore, it was in violation of the policy. We find that the letter of permission read with Project Report does not prohibit import of such goods. 4.3 It is seen that the Bill of Entry describes the goods as old and used clothing rags. In the instant case, the new clothes cannot be called rags and, therefore, there is a mis-declaration to this ex....