ORDER
Moheb Ali M., Member (T)
1. This appeal arises out of the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) Mumbai. who in the impugned order upheld the order of the lower authority confiscating the imported goods and imposed a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.
2. Briefly the facts are that the appellants imported a consignment of Digital Multimeters with a brand name but without showing any inscription as to the country of origin. Under Notification No. 1/64-Cus dt. 18.1.64 goods without such an inscription are not allowed to be imported into the country. During the currency of this notification the importers imported the above said goods and they were provisionally released on execution of a bond. Subsequently this notification has been rescind w.e.f. 10.10.2000 by notification No. 161/2000-Cus(NT). The original authority as well as the appellate authority were of view that this notification is only perspective in nature and cannot be applied to goods which had already been imported.
3. The Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellant argued that the Tribunal in the case of Rochi Ram & Sons v. Commissioner of Central Excise. Jaipur [2004 (166) ELT 203 (Tri.Del).] held that the rescinded notification is more of a clarificatory nature and therefore has a retrospective effect covering the goods which had earlier been imported. No contrary decision has been pointed out to us. Following the ratio of this judgment we hold that the notification No. 61/2000 has retrospective effect and covers goods which were provisionally released in this case. We therefore hold that the goods are not liable to confiscation. we accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the order of lower appellate authority.