2017 (11) TMI 989 - AT - Customs

Misdeclaration of goods - the goods declared as finished leather but found to be other than finished leather, in the absence of wax coating - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Public Notice No. 21/2009 dated 01.12.2009 - Held that - identical issue decided in the case of M/s. Expos Leather Company Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2010 (4) TMI 1112 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where confiscation and imposing penalty was set aside after noting that no effort was made to export the goods in question and that the goods had been allowed to be taken back for the purpose of applying protective coating so as to make the goods conform to the definition of finished leather - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether the leather exported is finished in the absence of wax coating and finished coating, leading to confiscation and penalty.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the dispute concerning whether the leather exported by the appellant should be considered finished in accordance with Public Notice No.21/2009. The absence of wax coating and finished coating by the assessees could render the leather unfinished, potentially resulting in confiscation and penalty imposition. The Tribunal noted that this issue has been the subject of several decisions, some of which have been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. The Tribunal specifically referenced past cases such as Vijayalakshmi Leather Vs. CC, Chennai; M/s. Expos Leather Co. Vs. CC, Chennai; M/s. Ahmed Overseas Corporation Vs. CC, Chennai; M/s. Meena Leather Exports & others Vs. CC, Chennai; and M/s. Sri Shanmuga Prima Tannery Vs. CC, Chennai.

In the present case, the Tribunal highlighted that the decision in the matter of M/s. Expos Leather Co. had been upheld by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. Given the clarity provided by the previous decision, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed both the appeals, providing consequential relief to the appellants. The judgment signifies the importance of consistency in legal interpretations and the reliance on past precedents to establish clarity and fairness in resolving disputes.