Judgment:
1. By the captioned appeal, the appellants have assailed the order of the ld. Collector (Appeals). The ld. Collector (Appeals), in his order had upheld the absolute confiscation of the T.T. Balls holding that the import of these balls was in clear violation of the provision of Import Policy.
2. Shri A.C. Jain, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellants submits that 36 dozens of table tennis balls were imported by the appellants in furtherance of the trade agreement entered into with the foreign supplier; that invoice clearly shows that the goods were being supplied free of cost and also that the value of the goods for customs purpose was $ 20/-. The ld. Counsel submits that these items were supplied for promotion of further orders. Referring to the Import Policy for the relevant period, the ld. Counsel submits that para 155 of the Import & Export Policy for the period 1st April, 1992 to 31st March, 1997 indicated prohibited items. He submits that the list clearly shows that the items imported by the appellants are not covered by Para 155. He submits that the goods imported were covered by the restricted items mentioned in Para 156. He submits that these items are governed by the restriction reading "Not permitted to be imported except against a licence or in accordance with a Public Notice issued in this behalf." He submits that a Public Notice was issued in this behalf permitting import of bona fide technical and trade samples supplied free of charge not exceeding Rs. 30,000/- in CIF value, in one consignment, excepting vegetable seeds, bees and new drugs by any importer under Public Notice No. 23(PN)/1992-97, dated 30-6-1992. He submits that all the requirements of the Import Policy were fully complied with in the instant case, therefore, the goods were legally imported and as the confiscation thereof was not warranted, he therefore, prayed that the order of confiscation may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.
3. Shri Nanak Chand, the ld. DR appearing for the respondent Commissioner (Appeals) submits that the goods are prohibited goods under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 and are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. He submits that since the goods are consumer goods and require a licence, therefore, the import of the goods was illegal and that the lower authorities have rightly confiscated the goods.
4. Heard the submissions of both sides. I find that tennis balls are consumer goods. I also find that these tennis balls were supplied free of cost. I also find that the ld. Collector (Appeals) had observed that the impugned goods were Butterfly Table Tennis Samples for the appellants future orders. From this it appears that there is no dispute that the goods in question are trade samples. Now the issue arises whether these trade samples can be imported without a valid import licence. I find that Public Notice No. 23(PN)/1992-97, dated 30-6-1992 stipulates that bonafide technical and trade samples supplied free of charge not exceeding Rs. 30,000/- in GIF value shall be permitted to be imported. The admitted position in the instant case is that the tennis balls were imported as trade samples; that they were supplied free of charge and the value thereof did not exceed Rs. 30,000/-. Thus in view of the fact that consumer goods could be imported subject to restrictions of the Public Notice, in the instant case the tennis balls could be imported subject to the Public Notice cited above. Since all the conditions of the Public Notice were satisfied in this case, therefore, the import restriction in respect of these tennis balls gets automatically waived. In this view of the matter, I hold that the tennis balls were legally imported.
5. In the result, the order confiscating the tennis balls is set aside and the appeal is allowed.