ORDER Sathiadev, J. 1. Respondents 1 to 3 in W.P. No. 3676 of 1981 are the appellants and the petitioner is the sole respondent therein. On the learned judge remitting the matter for fresh consideration in the light of what had been stated in his judgment dated 8.4.1983 [reported as Bakul Cashew Co. v. Union of India and Ors. in 1984 2 ECC 289 (Mad), this writ appeal is preferred. 2. The petitioner (ranking of parties as in W.P.) had exported 5,000 tonnes of tapioca chips after getting customs clearance on 2.2.1978. The goods were not assessed to any duty. Since the buyer required supply of another 250 tonnes of tapioca chips, that consignment was exported on 13.2.1978. The Customs authorities demanded export duty at Rs. 125/- per tonne, and the petitioner paid the same without prejudice to its right to claim refund. Thereafter, for the export made on 2.2.1978, it was called upon to pay export duty of Rs. 6,25,000/- treating it as, "animal feed" liable to export duty under item No. 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. By notification No. 107 dated 16.5.1978 issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Government included "tapioca chips" in the table annexed to Notification No. 16 Customs dated 22.1.1977 thus exempting animal feed of the description "tapioca chips" from the levy of export duty in item No. 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Therefore, the third respondent herein held that tapioca chips were not exempted from levy of export duty as animal feed prior to 1978 and accordingly levied export duty of Rs. 6,25,000/- under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the third respondent herein held that tapioca chips were not exempted from levy of export duty as animal feed prior to 1978 and accordingly levied export duty of Rs. 6,25,000/- under Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. Against this order, an appeal was preferred to the second respondent, who remitted the matter to the third respondent for de novo adjudication, but again the demand was confirmed on 16.3.1979 against which appeal and revision filed were also dismissed, and therefore, the writ petition was filed claiming that tapioca chips are not only used as animal feed, but also used as food articles for human consumption, and that having allowed 5,000 tonnes to be exported without demanding duty, and a clarification having been issued on 4.4.1977 that no export duty was leviable on this item, the respondents are estopped from claiming duty, and that there was an erroneous interpretation of Notification No. 107 of 1978 dated 18.5.1978. 3. The respondents claim that the point for determination in this case would be for what purpose the export transaction had been entered into by the exporter with the buyer abroad, and tapioca chips being consumed by human beings in some parts of the country would not mean that the exported goods were not animal feed, and that it comes within the scope of item No. 21 of Second Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the plea of promissory estoppel has no relevance, and the Notification No. 411 of 1976 relied upon had been rescinded by Notification No. 16 of 1977, and it has no application to the facts and circumstances of this case. 4. The learned judge after referring to various notifications issued from time to time, and on pointing out that notification No. 16 of 1977 does not specifically mention "tapioca chips", and that it cannot be always treated as animal feed, remitted the matter for fresh consideration. 5. Mr. P. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the appellants, submits that this matter does not merit any remittal, because after a de novo consideration, concurrently the authorities having come to the same conclusion that the purpose for which it was exported is for being used in industry and in western countries, it was intended to be ultimately used as animal feed, the duty claimed was proper. 6. 6. The matter does not call for any elaborate consideration in view of what was decided in Cougar International v. Collector of Customs as to how and in what manner tapioca chips could be treated as animal feed under item 21 of Second Schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It was pointed out that when reference is made to "animal feed", it has to be understood and interpreted as covering such tapioca chips as were particularly suited for use as animal feed, and when it is intended for industrial use, it cannot be termed as "animal feed" classifiable under item 21 of Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In the instant matter, the petitioner had declared that it was for industrial use. In para 11 in the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, this aspect had been considered and concluded in para 15 that: ... While the use to which a particular consignment of goods is put would not be decisive in regard to its classification, it is certainly relevant as an indication of its suitability for one or another purpose.... It was held that animal feed is not a general description of a particular commodity but refers to goods having a specific utility. The words "tapioca chips", cannot be strangely read into the words "animal feed" falling under item 21 of Export Tariff Schedule. Therefore, the demand for payment of duty as if what was exported was "animal feed" was outside the scope and ambit of item 21 of the Second Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 7. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed resulting in W.P. No. 3676 of 1981 being allowed as prayed for by the petitioner by quashing the demand made upon it to pay duty on the consignment of 5250 tonne exported by it on 2.2.1978 and 13.2.1978. No costs. WA. No. 587 or 1989 8. In view of what has been stated in WA. No. 33 of 1984, this appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the learned judge with the added direction that no duty could be claimed on the consignments involved in the matter. No costs.