TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 671
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 11,29,709 with consequential demand of Rs. 82,21,792 as duty instead of Rs. 3,17,448 paid on self-assessment along with the determining of fine of Rs. 5,00,000 for redemption of the impugned goods confiscated under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 and the imposition of penalty of Rs. 6,00,000 under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. The tale began with the appellant filing bill of entry no. 4232332/26.07.2019 with declared value of Rs. 11,29,709 and claimed to contain 'baby garment woolen knitted top' (38100 pieces priced at Rs. 14.49 apiece for value of Rs.5,52,069), 'baby garments woolen knitted jacket' (21000 pieces priced at Rs. 20.89 apiece for value of Rs. 4,38,690), 'men's knitted glove' (16800 pairs priced at Rs. 4.59 a pair for ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and Rs. 30,08,124 instead of Rs. 5,52,069 and Rs. 4,38,690 respectively) adopted from that of comparable goods, under the authority of rule 5 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007, which, in conjunction with the rate of duty corresponding to the revised description, enhanced duty liability to Rs.10,70,248.05 and Rs. 71,05,606.20 from Rs. 1,43,538 and Rs.1,12,034 as self-assessed). The importer, though denying any complicity in the consigning of the undeclared goods, acquiesced in the duty liability of Rs. 2577.55 arising thereon. 3. The cavil of the appellant is, thus, limited to the revision in classification. At this stage, it may not be out of place to note that the gap between the proportion of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the dereliction in declaring the contents of the consignment and pointed out that the collegial expertise of the Textile Committee, entrusted with specific responsibility by the Central Government for that very reason, sufficed for initiation of proceedings. It was argued by her that the appellant had misdeclared the composition of the garments owing to which the revised classification, and rejection of declared value for assessment, was a natural consequence. She exhorted that the appeal deserves dismissal. 6. The appellant had, in the bill of entry, sought coverage under 'of synthetic fibres' within 'Babies' garments and clothing accessories, knitted or crocheted' corresponding to tariff item no. 6111 30 00 while, on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....could find more succinct, and evocative, articulation. 8. Cross-border transactions stand on the bedrock of the certainty assured by statutes that enact, and policies that promulgate, internationally negotiated consensus; and to subject such transactions to proceedings that, donning the mantle of legal authority, care not a whit for legislative sanction is anathema to public interest. Tax, where due, must be collected with no respect to the cost borne by the payer; tax, though rendered unto Caesar, is not for Caesar. The polity would have been well served had the Textile Committee only restricted its advice to its remit and the adjudicating authority summoned sufficient enthusiasm to fit the known, and ascertained facts, within the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....onstruct for universally acceptable categorisation; some benchmark of measurement must separate boys/girls from babies - a distinguishment relevant, and sufficing, for the tariff. Note 6 in chapter 61 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, intending that, for the purpose of heading 6111; '(a) the expression "babies' garments and clothing accessories" means articles for young children of a body height not exceeding 86 cm; (b) articles which are, prima facie, classifiable both in heading 6111 and in other headings of this Chapter are to be classified in heading 6111.' (and replicated as note 4 in chapter 62 of First Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in relation to heading 6209) brooks no room for expertise or v....