9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 83X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contract with a foreign supplier in the year 1979 for a supply of 28,500 dozen pairs of soles. According to him, the first consignment arrived at the port of Cochin when objection was raised by Customs Authorities that the goods imported by the petitioner were not soles but complete footwear. Accordingly, they confiscated the goods. The matter ultimately reached the Central Board of Customs and Excise by way of an appeal which was disposed of on 5-4-1980. The Central Board held that the goods imported by the appellant cannot be described as footwear though they are in finished condition. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The Government of India sought to revise the order of the Central Board in exercise of its power of revision suo motu. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1979, dated 10-2-1979. The Collector of Customs, however, did not agree with the appellant. He held that the goods in question are fully finished goods identifiable as chappals. He observed that no expertise is required to insert the straps into them to make them suitable for wearing by human beings. He held that consumer goods are covered by Serial No. 667 of Appendix 3 and Serial No. 96 of Appendix 4 of April-March, 1979 policy and hence, not covered under Open General Licence (OGL). So far as the order of the Central Board dated 5-4-1980 is concerned, he observed that the said order is confined to the consignment which was the subject-matter of consideration by the Board and that it does not apply to other consignments. The Collector ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appellate Collector for disposing of the same in accordance with law and in the light of the observation made hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs. 6. The learned Counsel for the Revenue expressed an apprehension that inasmuch as the appellant has obtained the goods in pursuance of the provision for redemption provided in the order of the Collector, the goods are not now available for confiscation and that there may be an objection to the validity of proceedings before the Appellate Collector. We do not think, there is any ground for such apprehension inasmuch as the appellant having himself chosen to take advantage of the option provided in the order while simultaneously questioning the order of confiscation, cannot turn round ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
