ORDER
Jeet Ram Kait, Member (J)
1. This appeal is drected against Order-in-Original No. 94/97 – CAU dated 27.7.1997 by which the Commissioner has confiscated the goods and allowed them to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 30,000/- and also imposed a personal penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on the appellant.
2. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants have come in appeal on the ground that the leather was finished leather and the leather was applied with lesser protective coat with dye/pigment as the consignment was only a lining leather and though that was not in confirmity with the ” norms fixed by the Government of India. But they had done so as per the requirements of their foreign buyers and inasmuch as the leather is finished, though lesser protective coat with dye/pigment was applied. He further submits that the goods were brought back to the factory and were exported after re-processing. He also invited our attention to the Judgment rendered by this Bench in the case of Vijayalakshmi Leathers; Ribi Leathers and B.V. Leather v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai vide Final Order No. 257 to 259/2000 dated 28.1.2000 wherein the Tribunal after taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances allowed the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant and set aside the impugned order. Consultant therefore sought that the order of confiscation and imporsition of penalty may be set aside in view of the fact decided by the Tribunal in the case of Vijayalakshmi Leathers; Ribi Leather and B.V. Leathers v. Commissioner of Customs, Channai (supra).
3. DR Shri A. Jayachandran submits that the very fact that the goods had to be re-processed before exportation shows that the goods were not fully finished as per the norms prescribed by the Government of India. He further submitted that if they had earlier processed (the leather as per the requirements of the foreign buyer how did they the buyer) accept the re-processed goods which were processed as per the norms fixed by the Government of India. He therefore sumbitted that there is a violation at the time of export and the goods have been rightly confiscated and penalty has been rightly imposed for the omission and commission, making the goods also liable for confiscation.
4. We have considered the rival submissions and find that the facts in the case of Vijayalakshmi Leathers; Ribi Leathers and B.V. Leathers v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (supra) were identical and this Bench their Final Order No. 257 to 259/2000 dated 28.1.2000 had allowed appeals with consequential relief to the appellant and had set aside the impugned order. In that case also there were deficiencies and the goods were taken to the foctory for re-export so as to make good the deficiencies so that goods could be presented again for export. In that case it was held by this Bench that the goods tendered for export conform to most of the criteria and the variations has been explained as minor and on account of differences between the CLRI on dificiencies and requirements of the buyers, those minor deficiencies were not considered deliberate or committed with an intent to export prohibited goods out of the country. In view of the position that the facts in this case are identical to the facts in the case of Vijayalakshmi Leathers; Ribi Leathers and B.V. Leathers v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (supra), respectfully following the Judgment rendered by this Bench in the case of Vijayalakshmi Leathers; Ribi Leathers and B.V. Leathers v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai (supra) and taking all the facts and circumstances into account, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant and the impugned order is set aside. Appeal allowed. Ordered accordingly.
(Dictated and pronounced in Open Court)