2017 (1) TMI 1272 - HC - Customs

Classification of ladies leather footwear - sandals or chappals? - withdrawal of duty drawback - Based on the option of the FDDI (Footwear Design and Development Institute) revenue observed that the goods did not contain a strap at the back and were therefore, Chappals - Held that - respondents, acted upon prejudice and a preconceived notion that ladies sandals cannot be without a back strap - opinion that the goods were sandals and not chappals was deemed insufficient. Apart from these, the court wonders whether any of the experts in this case was a woman, the ultimate customers. In such cases, the commercial parlance test would predominate. Reliance placed in the case of United Offset Process Pvt. Ltd v Assistant Collector of Customs 1988 (10) TMI 39 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , where it was held that It is a well known principle that if the definition of a particular expression is not given, it must be understood in its popular or common sense viz. in the sense how that expression is used everyday by those who use or deal with those goods - duty drawback withdrawal and penalty set aside - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of goods as "sandals" or "chappals" for customs duty drawback purposes; Validity of expert opinions from Council of Leather Exports and Footwear Design and Development Institute; Imposition of penalty and recovery of drawback amount.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a Chennai-based unit, filed a shipping bill to export "ladies leather sandals" but faced scrutiny from the Customs leading to a dispute over the classification as "chappals." The Council of Leather Exports provided a certificate supporting the goods as sandals, while the Footwear Design and Development Institute opined they were chappals. A Show Cause Notice was issued for recovery of drawback and penalty under the Customs Act.

The Order-in-Original confirmed recovery of drawback and imposed a penalty, which was upheld in the appeal to the Collector of Customs. The Central Government, in a revision application, maintained the classification as chappals based on FDDI's opinion, reducing the penalty. The petitioner argued for consistency in classification and questioned the validity of FDDI's opinion without cross-examination.

The Revenue contended that FDDI's opinion was final, emphasizing the absence of a back strap on the goods. The Court noted the Council's expert opinion and questioned the prejudice against sandals without back straps. It highlighted the commercial parlance test and cited legal principles on classification based on trade understanding.

In conclusion, the Court found the orders upholding duty drawback withdrawal and penalty unsustainable, quashing them and allowing the writ petition in favor of the petitioner. The judgment emphasized the importance of commercial understanding in classifying goods and criticized the preconceived notions influencing the classification decision.