Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.