KRISHNA TEXTILES INDUSTRIES AND Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these appeals raise a common question of fact and law and hence they are taken up together for disposal as per law.

(2.) The appellants had imported synthetic rags through Tuticorin Port. It was alleged that the Public Notice in this regard did not specify Tuticorin Port and hence the import was not proper, the second issue with regard to mutilation of the goods and held that the rags were not properly mutilised and the end use certificate is also not endorsed and hence on these grounds the department ordered for confiscation of the imported synthetic rags and for complete mutilisation (sic, mutilation) of the goods. They were however permitted to be redeemed on payment of fine and penalties.

(3.) We have heard Ld. Counsel Shri S. Sethuraman who submits that a batch of 55 appeals by the parties and 4 appeals by the revenue on the same fact and circumstance were heard and disposed of by a common Order No. 500/1994 dated 2.5.1994. He produces a copy of the Tribunal's order, wherein the impugned orders were set aside on the ground of import made through Tuticorin Port is invalid including mutilation. The Tribunal however referred to the original authority for the purpose of verification of end use certificate. The fine and penalties were also set aside. The revenue appeals were dismissed. Counsel submits that in view of the Tribunal's order, following the ratio of the Hon'ble Madras High Court judgment, the imports were rightly made at the Tuticorin and Cochin Port and mutilation were properly done and that the fine and penalties are required to be set aside and has no objection for referring to the original authority for the purpose of verification of the end use certificate.