AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Devi Prasad Singh and Anil Kumar, JJ.—These three appeals, involve common substantial questions of law, and facts, hence are decided together by the common Judgment.
These appeals were admitted on the following common substantial questions of law:
Whether the Respondents can avail the benefits of Notifications No. 40/2002-Cus. dated, 12th April, 2002 read with Revised Protocol to the Indo-Nepal Treaty and the provisions of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 by misrelating true nature, composition and identity of the subject goods?
Whether the subject goods have been misdeclared under chapter heading 2936 and should have been classified under Chapter Heading 2309?
Whether the goods having nor gone through any manufacturing process at Nepal, the Order of the Tribunal is bad in law in view of Notification No. 9/96, 22nd January, 1996 issued u/s 11 of the Customs Act?"
We have answered aforesaid common questions of law by the separate Judgment in the appeal bearing number F.A.F.O. No. 918 of 2005 and allowed the appeal setting aside the Tribunal''s order. While allowing the appeal, the questions have been answered in favour of Appellant.
Accordingly, for the reasons given in F.A.F.O. No. 918 of 2005, we allow these appeals and answer the questions framed, in favour of the Appellant with finding that goods seized, shall fall under the heading 2936 of the Tariff. We set aside the Order of the Tribunal and restore the Orders passed by the Adjudicating Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, in these appeals.
Costs is made easy.