9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
Interpretation of Notification No. 45/94-Cus for imported synthetic counters of footwear; Denial of benefit based on leather content criteria; Lack of disclosure of opinion on leather content to the appellants; Error in lower appellate authority's decision-making process; Need for evidence-based determination of leather content in footwear. Analysis: The case involved the appellants importing synthetic counters of footwear and declaring them as footwear components for the leather industry to benefit from Notification No. 45/94-Cus. However, the benefit was denied by lower authorities citing that the counters were not meant for leather footwear as leather was not predominant in the footwear. The authorities introduced the concept that leather should be the major portion of the footwear to qualify as leather footwear, which was not disclosed to the appellants initially. The Asstt. Collector relied on international norms stating that footwear with more than 70% visible leather surface is considered leather footwear, while in India, more than 60% visible leather area qualifies as leather footwear. The appellants argued that the criteria should be based on trade parlance and questioned the basis for considering footwear with over 50% visible leather as leather footwear. The lower appellate authority also erred in making personal opinions the basis of decision instead of relying on evidence on record. The Tribunal observed a lack of evidence regarding whether footwear in the market is known as leather footwear with 50% visible leather surface area and whether the footwear made by the appellants had less than 50% leather area. Due to this dearth of evidence, the Tribunal deemed it necessary to remand the matter for determining these crucial questions to decide the controversy surrounding the benefit of the notification. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed for remand to the concerned Asstt. Commissioner of Customs for a fresh adjudication based on the evidence and directions provided. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of evidence-based decision-making, the need for clarity and disclosure of criteria to the appellants, and the requirement for a proper determination of leather content in footwear to ascertain eligibility for benefits under the relevant notification. The case underscored the significance of following established norms and relying on factual evidence in customs adjudication processes to ensure fair and just outcomes.
|
