BABA GARIBDAS VHARMARTH NYAS Vs. CC. NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellants M/s. Baba Garib Das Dharmarth, Mayur Vihar, Dehradun, U,P against the impugned order in original dated 13.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (ICD) who approved the value of imported goods at the rate of Rs.30/ - per Kg., ordered confiscation of the goods covered by Bills of Entry Nos.316262 and 316256 both dated 15.4.2000 with option to get the same redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 5 lakhs and imposed penalty of Rs.3 lakhs on them.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be stated as under:

(3.) The appellants as Charitable Organisation received from M/s. Comac Inc.,2835E, 26th Street, Verron ,CA 90058 by way of donation, two consignments of old used clothing one containing 100 bales and the other 103 bales for free distribution to the poor and needy persons without any distinction of caste, creed or race. They filed two Bills of Entry Nos.316262 and 316256 both dated 15.4.2000 to seek the Customs clearance of those consignments and in those bills of entry, they declared the goods classifiable under STH 6307.90 and the value declared was US s 5000, for each consignment, for Customs purposes as the goods otherwise were declared to be free donations. They claimed nil rated of duty in both the bills of entry in terms of exemption contained in Notification No.148/94 -Cus. dated 13.7.94 which inter alia exempted the cloth from the whole of day of Customs and whole of the additional duty, leviable there on, subject to the conditions mentioned therein. But the Customs authorities refused to allow the benefit of that notification and served two show cause notices containing identical grounds in respect of the above said bills of entry. On the appellants. and they were called upon to show cause as to why the goods be not valued at the rate of Rs.30/ - per Kg. as appraised by the Customs officer and the same be also not confiscated. The penalty was also proposed to be imposed. The grounds alleged in those notices were that the goods were undervalued, the appellants had no funds for payment of inland freight, detention charges and ground rent, they were not carrying substantial charitable activities, they neither obtained any registration certificate from the Ministry of Welfare and Ministry of Home Affairs nor any specific import licence, the goods imported were of the type which the poor people of (sic) area of however india to whom the were intended to be distributed were not used to put on, they failed to produce any document to prove the status of the donor and the bonafide gits of the goods for free distribution to the poor and needy persons.