2008(10)LCX0136

IN THE CESTAT, PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

S/Shri S.S. Kang, Vice-President and Rakesh Kumar, Member (T)

Tavin Fashion

Versus

Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata

Final Order Nos. C/570-571/2008(PB), dated 23-10-2008 in Appeal Nos. C/642-643/2005

Advocated By -

Shri Rupesh Kumar, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Shri Sumit Kumar, DR for the Respondent.

[Order per: S.S. Kang, Vice-President]. -

Heard both sides. The appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order whereby the footwear imported by the appellant were held to be classifiable under Tariff Heading 6404 1190 of the Customs Tariff. The appellant claimed the classification tariff under Heading 6405 20 00 of the Tariff. The contention of the appellant is that the lower authorities held that the footwear imported by the appellant are Sports Footwear. The contention is that as per the Chapter Note 64 of the Customs Tariff, Sports footwear which are specially designed for a sporting activity and has, or has provision for, the attachment of spikes, springs, stops, clips, bars or the like. It also includes skating boots, ski-boots and cross-country ski footwear etc. The contention is that the footwear are not sports footwear. These are ordinary foot- wear. The appellant relied upon the opinion of the Footwear Design and Development Institute, Ministry of Commerce which was obtained by the Commissioner of Customs and Footwear Design and Development Institute vide letter dt. 23-2-05 opining that the footwear, in question, do not have special feature to enhance sports activity to enhance sports activity or to improve the sports performance. In these circumstances the contention is that footwear in question are classifiable under Tariff Heading 6405 20 00 of the Tariff.


2. The contention of the revenue is that there is a specific finding that the footwear, in question, are for enhancing the sporting activity. As the same are having cushioning effect to facilitate sporting activity and the shoes have bars built in the bottom soles, therefore, the shoes are rightly classifiable as per impugned order.


3. We find that the case of the revenue is that the imported footwear are sports footwear. As per Chapter Note to Chapter 64, sports footwear are those which are designed for sporting activity and has, or has provision for the attachment of spikes, springs, stops, clips, bars or the like. We have also seen the samples produced by the appellant and we find that these shoes do not have any attachment of spikes, springs, stops, clips, bars etc. or for provision for attachment of these. Further, we find that as per the opinion of the Footwear Design and Development Institute which was obtained by the revenue, the footwear in question does not have special feature to enhance sports activity or to improve the sports performance. In these circumstances, we find merit in the contention of the appellant that the footwear in question are not sports footwear. The impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed.

(Order dictated in the open Court)

Equivalent 2009 (235) ELT 0254 (Tri. - Del.)

Equivalent 2009 (091) RLT 0949 (CESTAT-Del.)