Commissioner of Customs Vs. Radha Textiles and Radha Yarn P.

Commissioner of Customs vs Radha Textiles and Radha Yarn P.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 10, 2002

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/27995

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/27995
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T Gowri, G Srinivasan
Decided On: Apr 10, 2002
Subject: Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue: Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Commissioner of Customs

Respondent

Radha Textiles and Radha Yarn P.

Excerpt

.....this is not simply a case of misdeclaration of the goods. it cannot be doubted that garments even old and used would have considerably higher value than rags obtained by mutilating such garments. counsel for the respondent does not dispute this fact but contends that the value ought to have been determined by following the provisions of the customs valuation rules but without resorting to the provisions of rule 8, as has been done. we note the correctness of this point and would like the valuation to be redetermined by adopting sequentially the valuation rules. we would however put in as a note of caution, as pointed out by the departmental representative, that it is not possible or feasible to compare the consignment of old and used garments with any other consignment of old and used garments and comparison ought to be made only with similarly composed consignments.subject to this condition, the adjudicating authority should decide on the valuation after considering the material the respondent or the department may produce within two months from the receipt of this order keeping the observation in mind.3. it is somewhat difficult to accept as the departmental representative contends to accept that the appeal seeks absolute confiscation of the goods. one of the prayers in the appeal is appropriate redemption fine. the contention that the departmental representative raises that a deterrent action ought to have been taken for which he relies upon the judgment of the supreme court in garg woollen mills p. ltd. v. cc 1998 (104) elt 306 is unacceptable. the same deterrent action if necessary, can be arrived at by an appropriate fine and penalty. the judgment of the supreme court that he relies upon does not lay down any ratio but is obviously limited to the facts of that case. penalty imposable on the respondent would depend upon the value of the goods and should appropriately be determined in the fresh adjudication.4. the appeals are accordingly allowed and the.....

Full Judgment

1. Radha Textile and Radha Yarn Pvt. Ltd. each imported a consignment stated to be pre-mutilated woollen rags. Examination of the consignment showed that the consignment consisted to the extent of 85% of used serviceable garments, the remaining 15% being rags. Notice was issued proposing enhancement of the value and confiscation of the goods under Clause (d) and (m) of Section 11 and penalty. The Joint Commissioner passed orders enhancing value ordering confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem them on payment of fine and imposed penalty on the importers. His order was set aside on appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) who remanded the matter to the Joint Commissioner on the ground that there was failure of the principles of natural justice. On fresh adjudication, the Joint Commissioner in each case ordered confiscation and imposed penalty. The importers appealed against this order. The Commissioner (Appeals) on his view that the misdeclaration of goods did not amount to misdeclaration of value, and after referring to the Customs Valuation Rules, set aside the enhanced valuation. He ordered the goods to be released on payment of fine of 25% of the declared value in each one and reduced the penalty on the importers.

Hence these appeals by the Commissioner.

2. It is not possible for us to agree, after hearing both sides, with the view expressed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no case for enhancement of value. This is not simply a case of misdeclaration of the goods. It cannot be doubted that garments even old and used would have considerably higher value than rags obtained by mutilating such garments. Counsel for the respondent does not dispute this fact but contends that the value ought to have been determined by following the provisions of the Customs Valuation Rules but without resorting to the provisions of Rule 8, as has been done. We note the correctness of this point and would like the valuation to be redetermined by adopting sequentially the valuation rules. We would however put in as a note of caution, as pointed out by the departmental representative, that it is not possible or feasible to compare the consignment of old and used garments with any other consignment of old and used garments and comparison ought to be made only with similarly composed consignments.

Subject to this condition, the adjudicating authority should decide on the valuation after considering the material the respondent or the department may produce within two months from the receipt of this order keeping the observation in mind.

3. It is somewhat difficult to accept as the departmental representative contends to accept that the appeal seeks absolute confiscation of the goods. One of the prayers in the appeal is appropriate redemption fine. The contention that the departmental representative raises that a deterrent action ought to have been taken for which he relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Garg Woollen Mills P. Ltd. v. CC 1998 (104) ELT 306 is unacceptable. The same deterrent action if necessary, can be arrived at by an appropriate fine and penalty. The judgment of the Supreme Court that he relies upon does not lay down any ratio but is obviously limited to the facts of that case. Penalty imposable on the respondent would depend upon the value of the goods and should appropriately be determined in the fresh adjudication.

4. The appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned order set aside.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Commissioner of Customs vs Radha Textiles and Radha Yarn P. Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S T Gowri, G Srinivasan