Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Ram Nath & Sons (Huf) vs C.C.E., Delhi-Iv on 12 August, 2015
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
WEST BLOCK NO.2, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI 110 066.
Date of Hearing 12.08.2015
For Approval &Signature :
Honble Honble Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3.
Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Appeal No.C/215/2010-CU[DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.11/Cus/Appl/DLH-IV/2010, dated 26.02.2010 passed by the C.C.E.(Appeals), Delhi-I]
M/s. Ram Nath & Sons (HUF) Appellant
Vs.
C.C.E., Delhi-IV Respondent
Appearance None - for the appellants Mr. BB Sharma, DR - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Justice G. Raghuram, President Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) Final Order No.52824/2015, dated 12.08.2015 Per Mr. R.K. Singh :
Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 26.02.2010 which upheld the Order-in-Original dated 05.02.2009. The facts of the case briefly stated are as under:-
The appellant imported consignment of worn clothing (weighing 23,000 kgs.) classified under Customs Tariff Heading No.63 09 vide Bill of Entry No.114169, dated 06.01.2009. The primary adjudicating authority found that the impugned goods were restricted for import. Noting that appellant vide letter dated 29.01.2009 admitted that it did not have any import licence for the impugned goods, he passed the primary adjudication order confiscating the impugned goods under sections 111 (d) ibid but gave an option to redeem the goods on a fine of Rs.1,00,000/- and also imposed penalty of Rs.1,25,000/-.
2. In its appeal before the Tribunal, appellant has contended that the redemption fine and penalty are on the higher side. It contended that the transaction value first needs to be rejected before re-determining the value and that has not been done in the present case. It cited the judgement of Supreme Court in the case of Eicher tractors Ltd versus CC Mumbai [2000 (122) ELT 321 (SC)]. It also stated that worn clothing cannot be treated to be restricted.
3. The ld. Departmental Representative supported the impugned order stating that appellant was well aware that the goods were restricted and therefore the redemption fine and penalty are in order.
4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that in this case appellant had voluntarily foregone the requirement of a Show Cause Notice. The primary adjudicating authority accepted the declared value and therefore there is no dispute about valuation.
5. It is, however, a fact that the impugned goods are not freely importable. Even the ITC (HS) classification for worn clothing and other worn articles against classification CTH 6309 declared these goods and to be restricted subject to import licence. Appellant was well aware that the impugned goods required licence to import as in its own case CESTAT Final Order No.151/2006, dated 07.04.2006 had upheld confiscation of worn clothing for the same reason. Therefore, the confiscation as ordered by the primary adjudicating authority is legally sustainable as the appellant did not have any import licence. We also find that the redemption fine and penalty are in the vicinity of 15% and 20% respectively of the assessable value which for these kind of goods and for a repeat offender are in no way excessive, arbitrary or unreasonable.
6 In the light of the foregoing discussion, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.
(Justice G. Raghuram) President (R.K. Singh) Member (Technical) SSK -3-