ORDER
Harish Chander, Member (J)
1. M/s Laxmi Woollen Mills has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, New Delhi. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellants had imported synthetic rags vide Bill of Entry No. 2140 dated 12th August, 1987 at I.C.D., Pragati Maidan, New Delhi through their authorised agent M/s Om International for the clearance of 30 bales contained in container No. ICSU 120966-40 valued at Rs. 89,508/- CIF and sought the clearance of the same under OGL, Appendix-6, List 8, Part-1, Item No. 418 and assessment under chapter heading No. 63.10. The goods were examined on 10% basis and were found to be synthetic rags cut into two pieces only and were not in completely pre-mutilated condition as had been declared by the importers and did not confirm to the declaration made on the bill of entry and the invoice attached therewith. Para No. 37(i)(b) of the AM 1985-88 Import & Export Policy read as under :-
“Old Rags of woollen textile fabrics including knitted and crocheted fabrics, which are required for the manufacture of Shoddy Yarn and may consist of articles of furnishing or clothings or other clothing so worn out, boiled or torn as to be beyond cleaning or repair”.
2. The adjudicating authority was of the view that since the synthetic rags imported in the present consignment did not satisfy the above condition the same were not covered under OGL and a specific licence was required for the clearance of the same and the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority had ordered confiscation of the rags under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 but had given an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 1,35,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 23.000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order the appellant has come in appeal before the Tribunal.
3. Shri Hari Om Arora, the learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant. He has reiterated the contentions made in the appeal memo. He has referred to the Import and Export Policy and pleaded that the appellants are actual users. He has pleaded that the appellant’s case is fully covered by an earlier judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Kakkar & Co. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 718 (Tribunal). He had pleaded for the acceptance of the appeal.
4. Ms. Renuka Mann, the learned SDR has appeared on behalf of the respondent. She has relied on the order passed by the lower adjudicating authority and had argued that the goods imported did not conform to the Import Policy and pleaded for the dismissal of the appeal.
5. We have heard both the sides and have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. The facts are not disputed. The goods are similar to those imported in Kakkar & Co. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 718 (Tribunal). The Revenue not being satisfied from the order passed by the Tribunal had filed 3 appeals before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which were registered vide Appeal Nos. 12523-26/88 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court had dismissed the appeals. The judgment had been reproduced in the titbitment part of the Excise Law Tunes, 1989 (42) E.L.T. A-44. The said judgment is reproduced below :-
“In view of the facts found by the Tribunal it is clear that the goods were rags as contained in Bills of Entry, there is no dispute. The only question in dispute that was raised that the rags were not completely mutilated and these are retrievable and are restitchable. The Tribunal went into the question and held exhaustive discussion, took into consideration all the relevant facts and also that the goods were not available and as such no further mutilation was possible, came to the conclusion that the order of the Collector was not sustainable. The appeal was allowed. We find no ground to entertain this petition. The petition is therefore dismissed.”
We very respectfully followed the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We hold that the importation was under AM-1985-88 Import & Export Policy. Accordingly, we set aside the fine and penalty imposed at Rs. 1,35,000/- and 23,000/- respectively. We set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. The revenue authorities are directed to give consequential effect to this order. In the result the appeal is allowed.