Judgment:
Both appeals involve identical issues and are hence heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The appellants herein filed duty drawback shipping bills for export of burnishable upper finished leather. On examination of the consignment it was found to be semi-finished burinishable finished leather as against the declaration that it was finished leather. CLRI opined that samples drawn from the consignments did not satisfy the norms and conditions laid down for finished leather in the absence of wax coating and dying. Hence the goods were confiscated with an option of redemption and penalty was also imposed on the appellants. The orders were set aside by the Tribunal which remanded the cases for fresh decision and on remand, fresh orders which are now challenged in these appeals were passed once again upholding confiscation with an option of redemption on payment of a fine and on imposition of penalty; hence this appeal.
3. I have heard both sides. I find that in an identical situation in the case of Sri Shanmuga Prima Tannery Vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai vide Final Order No.688/2003 dated 04.09.2003, the Bench accepted the contention of the appellants that the leather was finished leather, although a lesser protective coat with dye/pigment was applied. The Tribunal followed Final Order No.257 to 259/2000 dated 28.01.2000 in the case of Vijayalakshmi Leathers and Others while setting aside the confiscation and penalty.
4. The learned DR has not been able to distinguish the facts of the above cases from the present one. The ratio of the above decision is applicable on all fours to the facts of the present appellants. Therefore, following the ratio of the Sri Shanmuga Primary Tannery order cited supra, I set aside the impugned orders and allow these two appeals.