G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)

1. Being dis-satisfied with the order-in-original No. 29-C/86, dated 4-12-1986, passed by the Collector of Customs, New Delhi, all the appellant who are partners and running their business under the name and style of M/s. Decor- India, New Delhi, have preferred their separate appeals, which were heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. Factual backdrops: The appellant, M/s. Decor India is a partnership firm and M/s. K.K. Exports is a sister concern of the said firm. The other appellants herein are the partners of the appellant firm M/s. Decor India, New Delhi. On 18-2-1986, the authorities concerned searched the business premises of the appellant M/s. Decor India and its sister concern, M/s. K.K. Exports, and recovered 4672 rolls of Vinyl Wall Coverings imported from United Kingdom and West Germany and 304 pcs of Acrylic Pile Rugs. The same were seized on 19-2-19S6 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Statements of the partners were also recorded. After the usual investigation, Dy. Director (Inv), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence issued separate Show Cause Notices to the appellants 'proposing to confiscate the seized goods and also for levying personal penalties upon them for contravening the provisions of Clause (3) of Import (Control) Order, 1955 (as amended) issued under Section 3 of Import Export Control Act, 1947 as amended) read with Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962, alleging that the said firms have imported Vinyl Wall Coverings and Acrylic Pile Rugs as PVC sheets and Artificial Fur Cloth by misdeclaring and have abused import licences. In reply the appellants, inter alia, contended that there was no misdeclaration of the goods as alleged; that Vinyl Wall Coverings are also PVC sheets; that PVC stood for Polyvinyl Chloride and therefore there was no misdeclaration in referring to Vinyl Wall Coverings as PVC sheets and that similarly Acrylic Fur Cloth also had the characteristics of fur cloth and were made of acrylic which is artificial or synthetic fibre. It was further contended that Vinyl Wall Coverings contains over 59% of PVC; that since these are predominantly made of plastic these had to be considered as PVC sheets; that the designs were all in the PVC portion and the paper was only a backing material; that as per Rule 3(b) of the Rules of Interpretation of the Customs Tariff, the goods were to be classified as if they consisted of material which gave the goods their essential character and that the goods being in the form of sheets have to be considered as only PVC sheets. It was also emphasised that earlier the appellants had imported one consignment of decorative paper under B/E No. 001367, dated 5-4-1983 against licence No. 2902201, dated 11-12-1981, which was valid for inter alia decorative paper; that the goods were tested by the Customs House, Bombay, and was found that PVC content was 59.6%; that since the goods were predominantly of PVC, the Bombay Customs had held that the licence produced for decorative paper was not valid to cover the goods; that accordingly they imposed a certain amount of fine in lieu of confiscation of goods; that the goods were also assessed to duty under Chapter 39 of CTA and c.v.d. was charged under 15A GET; and that it was only after the Bombay Customs decided to classify the goods as PVC sheets on the basis of predominance of the PVC content that they started importing the goods against licence for PVC sheets and also asked the supplier to declare the goods as PVC sheets; that as they had acted on the basis of the information conveyed to them by the Bombay Customs the Department could not then, turn round and say that they had misdeclared the goods and had claimed clearance against invalid licence. The appellant also contended that the entire proceedings were without jurisdiction; that even if, according to the Department, the goods have been released by the Customs after the appellant had paid duty and the import li