Full Judgment
Consequent to this, goods were directed to be confiscated. Importer was given an option to redeem the same on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 10 Lakhs. Penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs was also imposed invoking the Provisions contained in Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. This action of the authorities is under challenge.
2. Learned Counsel representing the appellant submitted that the goods imported were re-examined at the request of the importer on 04.05.2000 where it was found that the garments were old, used and showing appreciable signs of wear. As a result of this, according to Counsel, the authorities were not justified in enhancing the value of the imported goods. It was also contended by him that the order impugned did not give any reason for fixing the redemption fine at Rs. 10 Lakhs and also for imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 Lakhs. On this count, learned Counsel prayed for remand of the case to the adjudicating authority for proper assessment of the value of the goods and consequent refixation of redemption fine and penalty.
3. Learned Departmental Representative countered the claims advanced by the appellant contending that the appellant did not possess specific licence for importing used garments. He got the goods imported without such licence describing it as old lot stock garments. This very fact shows that there was mis-declaration of the goods for getting the goods imported without licence. It is also his case that the value of imported old garments was fixed at US $ 0.50 per Kg. and that valuation was being constantly upheld by this Tribunal in various earlier orders.
In the instant case, the enhancement in the value was agreed to by the Customs Agent who represented the importer and in token of his agreement to the enhancement of value, he affixed his signature on the back of the Bill of Entry. After having agreed to the enhancement it is, according to learned Departmental Representative, not open to the importer to challenge the enhancement. The value of the goods imported was found to be Rs. 21,96,902/-. Goods worth that amount was sought to be imported by mis-declaration on account of absence of the specific licence. Such import was in contravention of the Provisions contained in Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Act. So the fixation of Rs. 10 lakhs as a redemption fine, at less than 50% of the value is reasonable and it calls for no interference. Regarding the imposition of penalty, it was contended by the learned Departmental Representative that a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs imposed as penalty in getting goods released worth Rs. 21.96 lakhs is too meagre to be interfered with by this Tribunal.
4. It is the admitted case of the appellant that the Bill of Entry declared the goods as Old Lot Stock Garments. Such goods did not require specific licence for its import. Appellant had no specific licence. Therefore, import of the goods covered by the Bill of Entry could be affected without licence only if it was described as "Old Lot Stock Garments". When the goods were re-examined at the request of the importer, it was found to be "Readymade garments old, used and showed appreciable signs of wear". Such goods could not be imported without specific licence. So the attempt of the importer was to get the goods imported by mis-declaration. In this view of the matter, we confirm the finding of the authority that the appellant resorted to mis-declaration of the goods for getting the consignment imported.
5. The value of the goods as shown in the Invoice and the Bill of Entry was US $ 0.40 per Kg. That was enhanced to US $ 0.50 per KG. This enhancement of the value was, as could be seen from the order impugned, in consultation with the Customs Agent of the importer. In token of having agreed to the enhancement, Customs House Agent signed at the back of the Bill of Entry. The Customs House Agent acted as representative of the importer. When he has agreed to the enhancement, it is not open to the importer to turn back and contend that the enhancement was without any basis. Further this Tribunal was adopting the price of 0.50 US$ per Kg. in relation to Old worn out garments in many cases decided by it. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or error in loading the value given in the Invoices and Bill of Entry to 0.50 US $ per Kg.
6. The value of the goods sought to be imported at the loaded price comes to Rs. 21,96,902/-. Those goods have been sought to be imported in violation of the Provisions contained in Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Act. So the goods sought to be imported are liable to confiscation. In such a situation, the authorities have given an option to the importer to redeem the same. Redemption fine has been fixed at less than 50% of the total value of the goods sought to be imported. We do not find any ground to interfere with the said fixation of redemption fine. Taking into consideration the total value of the goods, penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs is on the lower side. It also calls for no interference. In view of what has been stated above, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.