ORDER
J.H. Joglekar, Member (T)
1. The respondents exported shoes in November 1993 which were re-imported and sought to be cleared vide bill of entry filed on 31-8-1994. On that day Section 20 of the Customs Act read as under :-
“Section 20. Re-importation of goods. – If goods are imported into India after exportation therefrom, such goods shall be liable to duty and be subject to all the conditions and restrictions, if any, to which goods of the like kind and value are liable or subject on the importation thereof. Provided that if such importation (other than importation of goods exported in bond or of goods produced or manufactured in a free trade zone) takes place within three years after the exportation of such goods and it is shown to the satisfaction of the Assistant Collector of Customs that the goods are the same which were exported, the goods may be admitted.
(a) in any case where at the time of exportation of the goods, drawback of any Customs or Excise duty levied by the Union or both was allowed, on payment of Customs duty equal to the amount of such drawback;
(b) in any case where at the time of exportation of the goods, drawback of any excise duty levied by a Stat was allowed, on payment of Customs duty equal to such Excise duty leviable at the time and place of importation of the goods;
(c) in any other case, without payment of duty :
Provided further that if the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may by order in each case, extend the aforesaid period of three years for such further period as it may deem fit.”
The Deputy Collector held that the expressed “bond” used in Section 20 covered a bond filed in terms of the Central Excise Act also. On this ground he held that the goods were leviable to Customs duty. He further held that these were consumer goods in the negative list and liable to confiscation in the advance of valid licence. He confiscated the goods, imposed a fine and also a penalty. Importers then filed an appeal. The Collector (Appeals) accepted that the phrase “bond” covered both Customs bond as also Excise bond, but directed that the goods be cleared on appropriate Central Excise duty being paid. Against this order the Revenue have filed the present appeal. The claim made is that the goods are chargeable to Customs duty and that the prohibitions imposed under the EXIM Policy would apply to these goods.
2. We have heard Shri K.L. Ramteke the ld. JDR for the Revenue and Shri M.J. Nambiar the ld. Consultant for the respondents.
3. The interpretation that the term ‘bond’ used in the Section 20 would cover bonds taken under the Customs Act, as well as the Central Excise Act has came out in the judgment of the CEGAT in the case of Collector of Customs v. Printer House Ltd. [1998 (104) E.L.T. 632]. Since this is the accepted situation in such cases, the first proviso to the said Section would not apply. Consequently the goods would become liable to Customs duty and also be subject to the restriction and prohibitions imposed under the ITC policy at the time of much re-importation. On this ground we accept the contentions made by the Revenue.
4. Shri Nambiar during his submission mentioned that the importers had abandoned the goods since they could not pay the duty demanded. In this situation the orders relating to the confiscation and imposition of fine cease to have any relevance. As regards the penalty we find that the Collector in his order had observed that the rejection of the goods was not due to any commission or omission by the importer and opined that on this count the lower authority should have released the goods on a lenient view being taken. The order of the Collector does not seem to indicate that he had ruled that the goods were not liable to confiscation. His setting aside the impugned order of confiscation and imposition of penalty was based on humanitarian consideration and was of practical nature. On this ground we do not want to reinstate the Deputy Collector’s order.
5. In the cited judgement in the case of Printer House Ltd. the Tribunal had specified Customs excise duty equivalent to the Central excise duty. This was in terms of Section 20 as it existed before being amended vide Finance Act, 1994. The Section 20 as extracted above which was current at the time being quotation did not provide this facility.
6. We therefore hold that in situation as existing in the present proceedings the goods were liable to Customs duty and CVD. We also hold that the goods were subject to the limitations and restrictions in the Import Trade Control Policy. To this extent, we set aside the Collector’s order but uphold his order as regards the non-imposition of penalty.