2023 (8) TMI 948

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ared value was enhanced to US$ 0.60 per kg under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007. Redemption fine and penalty were also imposed on the ground that the old and used worn clothing articles are classifiable under Tariff Item No.63090000 of the First Schedule of the Act and is restricted item for import as per Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, read with ITC HS Classification of import and export items 2009-2014. Import of goods under Tariff Item No.63090000 is restricted and their import is allowed only against the valid specific license. 2.2 In the impugned order, the Adjudicating Authority has classified some goods under Tariff Item 63090000 and the bales of quit found in the consignments have been classified under T....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rments. The declared value was enhanced to US$ 0.60 per kg under Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007and the department has not produced any additional evidence for further enhancement. Accordingly, we hold that the redetermined value doesn't require any modification or further enhancement. 6. Regarding the redemption fine and penalty imposed in the impugned order, we observe that this valuation issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Venus Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai reported in 2019 (365) ELT 958 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein this Tribunal has observed as under : "4. We find that proceedings initiated against most of the imports commenced even before the filing of bills of entry. In these....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the import and, that too, after remand was ordered by the Tribunal, does not appear to the intent of the decision of the Tribunal. The remand order is specific in directing that the margin of profit, ascertained for computation of the fine, should be made known to the appellant. It is, therefore, the manner in which the original authority had, in the first instance, ascertained the margin of profit that was required to be supplied to the appellants. The original authority has patently failed to do so and has tried to rectify the deficiency of such ascertainment by a process that is not only bereft of validity but also inconsistent with the remand order. The Tribunal, in its remand order, had allowed determination of value of misdeclared go....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n of profit that prompted the fine and penalty, the matter would normally have to be remitted back by another remand order. However, 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%." 7. We observe that while deciding the quantum of the redemption fine and personal penalty, the Adjudicating Authority has taken into account the detention charges, the demurrage charges and the....