TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 594
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the respondents imported old and used worn clothing, completely fumigated which were assessed after value enhancement, confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. 2.1 The declared value was enhanced from US$ 1.10 per kg to US$ 1.316 per kg and redemption fine and penalties 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 The Adjud....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Foreign Trade Policy. Want of such licence is not disputed by the appellants. Consequently, confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 in the impugned order cannot be faulted. Release of confiscated goods to the importer is contingent upon fine in lieu imposed under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. The redemption fine is not, in terms of the statute, permitted to exceed the market price of the goods and the undertaking of a survey is not improper. However, such a survey, more than a decade after 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... we have to proceed further in this case. As regards the margin of profit, a market survey was done whose salient features are as follows :' in the impugned order. 6. Though the appellants question the margin of profit and the validity of market survey, there is no serious resistance to the ascertained value. 7. Considering the various issues and submissions made and the failure of the original authority to comply with the direction in remand to disclose the margin 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 failu....