ORDER
Shri C.N.B.Nair
1. The appellant firm, M/s. Bata Indian Ltd. is a manufacturer of footwear. They imported two consignments of “2100 Nylon + 4M/M K 329 + TRICOT 60”. The goods were made of one layer of Nylon of 60″ width, one layer of Foam and one layer of Tricot of 60″ width.
2. The impugned Orders have held that the goods in question were consumer goods which were covered by EXIM Code 58110000.90 of the Export and Import Policy, and have confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the appellants have been given an opportunity to redeem them on payment of a redemption fine of Rs.25,000.00 per consignment (total of Rs.50,000.00). A penalty of Rs.10,000.00 has also been imposed under Section 112(a). The confiscation of the goods was presumably on the basis that they were consumer goods not permitted to be imported.
3. When the matter came up for hearing today, learned Counsel representing the appellants submitted that the goods were industrial raw-materials and were imported for use in the manufacture of Shoe Upper. This position has been admitted in the adjudication order also. However, when the goods were taken to the factory, it was observed that they were not of suitable quality. They were, therefore, re-exported.
4. Learned Counsel for the appellants have submitted that the goods in question could not be treated as consumer goods, inasmuch as the adjudication order itself has accepted that they are raw materials for the manufacture of Shoe Upper. He, in this context has referred to the following decisions of the Tribunal:-
(i) 1996(86)ELT-388 (Tribunal) in the case of Mod Apparel Exports vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta;
(ii) 1993(66)ELT-441 (Tribunal) in the case of Plast Fab vs. Collector of Customs;
(iii) 1996(88)ELT-134 (Tribunal) in the case of Ganesh Exports vs. Collector of Customs.
He submits that in the above cases, in respect of similar goods, the Tribunal held that they were not consumer goods. Learned Counsel also has submitted that the confiscation and imposition of penalty could not be justified in view of the further fact that goods have been re-exported.
5. We have heard learned D.R. also.
6. It is clear from the adjudication order itself that the goods in question were industrial raw materials intended for manufacture of Shoe Upper. Treating them as consumer goods could not be justified inasmuch as the goods could not be utilised for consumption by the public. Therefore, their confiscation and imposition of penalty were not justified. We also note that in respect of similar products, the Tribunal had already accepted that such goods cannot be treated as consumer goods. Since the goods have subsequently been re-exported also, imposition of redemption fine and penalty becomes all the more unjustified.
7. In view of what is stated above, the appeal is allowed and the redemption fine and penalty are set aside with consequential relief to the appellants.