JAIN ENTERPRISES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT , M/s. Jain Enterprises, filed a Bill of Entry No. 14/99 dated 25.03.1999 in relation to import of 1020 bales of cotton garments weighing 1,02,000 Kgs. Garments were described in the Bill of Lading as "Old Lot Stock Garments". The value of the garments was shown at US $ 0.40 per Kg. Customs Authorities did not accept the value shown in the Bill of Entry, Bill of Lading and the Invoice. The value was enhanced to US $ 0.50 CIF per Kg. Accordingly, the value of the imported materials was found to be Rs. 21,96,902.00 as against Rs. 15,50,764/ - shown in the Bill of Lading. Consequently, the lower authorities came to the conclusion that the import of the consignment was against the Provisions contained in Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act. 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.) 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.