Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Krishna Export Corporation, Al Yaseen ... vs Commissioner Of Customs on 13 March, 2003
ORDER
Gowri Shankar, Member (Technical)
1. Each of the appellant before us imported consignments of goods stated to be synthetic rags. Examination of each of the consignments showed that it was not composed of entirely synthetic rags but was found to contain either serviceable garments or garments cut in two pieces. On this being brought to the notice of the importers, each of them agreed in writing to pay duty on the goods as if they were garments. Each of them also produced import licences to cover the importation as if they were garments. The Commissioner accepted this offer and ordered the goods to be classified as garments for purpose of import policy as well as for assessment to duty. He ordered that the value of the goods should be increased to US$ 0.35 per kilogram wherever the value declared was lower and any higher value declared was to be undisturbed. He ordered confiscation of the goods under Clauses (d) and (m) of Section 111 of the Act with an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine, which should be on the basis of Rupees two per kilogram. Hence these appeals.
2. The common counsel for the appellants says that the appeals are limited to the quantum of redemption fine. He points out that confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act cannot be sustained, since import licences which had been produced for the goods have been accepted and debited. He contends that the importers have in fact paid more duty than they ought to have, since in order to ensure speedy clearance, they paid the duty as if they were garments on that part of the consignments which were in fact not garments but consisted of rags.
3. The departmental representative contends that the appellants have accepted the goods to be garments and were in fact misdeclared the goods to be rags.
4. The letter of each of the importers given dated 4.12.1996 indicates that they were ready to treat the goods to be garments only for speedy clearance. It is also not in dispute that part of the consignments does not consist of garments. Confiscation of the goods under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act would not be justifiable, since the import licences produced were for import of garments. Confiscation under Clause (m) of Section 111 would be sustainable. Taking into account the facts as already narrated above, we think it appropriate to reduce the redemption fine on the basis of rupee one per kilogram.
5. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part.