KHALID AUTOMOBILES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals are preferred against the judgment and orders of the collector of Customs and central Excise, Cochin dated 29/3/1982 confiscating the goods concerned herein and at the same time providing an option to the appellant to redeem them on payment of the specified fine. It is necessary to state a few facts for a proper appreciation of the question arising herein.

(2.) The petitioner is a manufacturer of footwear. He says, he entered into a 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. It issued a notice to the appellant proposing to do so.

(3.) Meanwhile, a second consignment arrived at the port of Cochin on 6-6- 1981. With respect to the said consignment, the customs authorities raised the same objection again. They issued a notice on 6/6/1981 calling upon theappellant to show cause why the goods be not confiscated under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act. At that stage, the appellant approached the Delhi high court byway of civil writ petition being CWP No. 2486 of 1981. In this writ petition, the appellant questioned the notice issued by the government of india proposing to revise the order of the central Board dated 5/4/1980 sue motu as well as the show-cause notice dated 6/6/1981 issued by the Collector of customs. By his judgment and order dated 16/3/1982, a learned Single Judge of the Delhi High court quashed the notice given by the government of India proposing the revision of the central Board's order on the ground that it was barred by limitation. But so far as the show-cause notice dated 6/6/1981 is concerned, the High court was of the opinion that it is open to the Collector to come to his own conclusion on the merits of the case and hence, there was no occasion for quashing the show-cause notice. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Collector and brought to its notice the order of the Central board dated 5/4/1980 wherein, according to the appellant, similar goods were held to be covered by the Exemption Notification No. 29 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 observed further that in any event the Board's order is under review in pursuance of the show-cause notice issued by the central government.