JUDGMENT : S.C. Gupte, J. This Customs Appeal impugnes the order passed by the Custom, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai ("Tribunal"). The controversy in the appeal concerns confiscation of cosmetic goods imported by the Respondent as goods improperly imported, that is to say, imported or brought within Indian customs waters contrary to the prohibition imposed by law. 2. The Respondent imported cosmetics described as "Shower Gel, Roll on, Shampoo / Conditioner Shampoo, Shaving Gel, Hair Cream, Body Cream and Scented Spray" with declared value of Rs. 7,54,095/-, and filed a bill of entry, seeking assessment of the goods described as 'Cosmetics' under Chapter 33 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. A show cause notice was thereupon issued to the Respondent, inter alia claiming that, in terms of Rule 133 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 ("Rules"), its import of cosmetics was improper, since the goods were not imported through points of entry specified under Rule 43-A of the Rules. After considering the reply and written submissions of the Respondent (despite an opportunity being given to them, the Respondent did not avail of personal hearing), the Comissioner of Customs, Customs House, Marmagoa, by his letter dated 18.11.2009, ordered absolute confiscation of the imported goods on the ground that the goods could not be allowed to be imported through Marmagoa Port. The Commissioner held that under Rule 133 of the Rules, read with Rule 43-A, the goods, which were cosmetics, could be imported only through points of entry specified under Rule 43-A, and Marmagoa not being a specified point of entry for import of these goods, the import was improper and the goods were liable to be confiscated on the ground that they were imported contrary to the prohibition imposed by law. 3. The Respondent carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its impugned Order dated 23.12.2009, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner. The Tribunal's order essentially proceeds on the footing that the items imported by the Respondent were substances not intended for medicinal use, and were accordingly entitled to exemption under Rule 132 of the Rules. The Tribunal, by its impugned Order dated 23.12.2009, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Commissioner. The Tribunal's order essentially proceeds on the footing that the items imported by the Respondent were substances not intended for medicinal use, and were accordingly entitled to exemption under Rule 132 of the Rules. The Tribunal also considered the clarification purportedly issued by the Deputy Drug Controller by his letter dated 12.10.2009 that cosmetics, as specified in Schedule D, shall be exempted from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act and rules made there under, to the extent and subject to the conditions specified in that Schedule. The Tribunal held that the goods in question were covered by Entry No.1 of Schedule D and read with Rule 132 were entitled to exemption from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act and the Rules framed there under, and accordingly, could be imported freely from the Goa Port. 4. The Commissioner of Customs has carried the Tribunal's order in the present appeal. The appeal was admitted by framing the following substantial question of law (as corrected by us): Whether 'cosmetics' as defined under Section 3(aaa) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 could not be hit by the restriction contained in Rule 133 read with Rule 43-A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945?. 5. When the Customs Appeal was called out for hearing on 14.03.2019, none appeared for the Respondent and the matter was stood over. The Appellant was directed to convey the order to the Respondent, making it clear inter alia that if the Respondent remained absent on the next date of hearing, the matter would be heard in its absence. The Respondent appeared on 27.03.2019, when, as and by way of last indulgence, two week's time was granted, making it once again clear that no further adjournment would be granted. The Respondent is absent today. The matter is, in the premises, heard exparte against the Respondent. 6. The Respondent appeared on 27.03.2019, when, as and by way of last indulgence, two week's time was granted, making it once again clear that no further adjournment would be granted. The Respondent is absent today. The matter is, in the premises, heard exparte against the Respondent. 6. The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 ("Act") contains the following definitions of 'cosmetic' and 'drug': 3.[(aaa)] "cosmetic" means any article intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled or sprayed on, or introduced into, or otherwise applied to, the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness , or altering the appearance, and includes any article intended for use as a component of cosmetic." [(b)] "drug" includes -- [(i) all medicines for internal or external use of human beings or animals and all substances intended to be used for or in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease or disorder in human beings or animals, including preparations applied on human body for the purpose of repelling insects like mosquitoes;] (ii) such substances (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the human body or intended to be used for the destruction of [vermin] or insects which cause disease in human beings or animals, as may be specified from time to time by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette;] (iii) all substances intended for use as components of a drug including empty gelatin capsules; and (iv) such devices intended for internal or external use in the diagnosis, treatment, mitigation, or prevention of disease or disorder in human beings or animals, as may be specified from time to time by the Central Government by notification in the Official Gazette, after consultation with the Board;]" 7. Rules 132 and 133 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 ("Rules") are in the following terms : "132. Exemption of cosmetics - Cosmetics as may be specified in Schedule D shall be exempted from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act and the rules made there under to the extent and subject to the conditions specified in that Schedule." "133. Import through points of entry - No cosmetic shall be imported into India except through the points of entry specified in Rule 43-A." 8. Import through points of entry - No cosmetic shall be imported into India except through the points of entry specified in Rule 43-A." 8. Rule 43-A of the Rules is as follows: 43-A. No drug shall be imported into India except through one of the following places, namely:-- Firozepur Cantonment and Amritsar Railway Stations: In respect of drugs by rail across the frontier with Pakistan, Ranaghat, Bongaon and Mohiassan Railway Stations: In respect of drugs imported by rail across the frontier with Bangladesh. [Raxual: in respect of drugs imported by road and railway lines connecting Raxual in India and Birganj in Nepal.] [[Chennai], [Kolkata], [Mumbai], Cochin, Nhava Sheva and Kandla.] In respect of drugs imported by sea into India. [[Chennai], [Kolkata], [Mumbai], Delhi, Ahmedabad [and Hyderabad]: In respect of drugs imported by air into India.]" 9. It is not in dispute that the goods imported by the Respondent are cosmetics. It also cannot be gainsaid that as cosmetics they could not have been imported into India, except through points of entry specified under Rule 43-A. The argument of the Respondent, which apparently found favour with the Tribunal, is that, as these goods are substances specified in Schedule D, they are exempted from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act, and the Rules made there under, to the extent and subject to the conditions specified in the Schedule, and as such the restriction of point of entry does not apply to their import. 10. Schedule D, which is the relevant Schedule, is reproduced below: SCHEDULE D [See Rule 43] Class of drugs Extent and conditions of exemption 1. Substances not intended for medicinal use All provisions of Chapter III of the Act and Rules there under subject to the condition that if the substance is imported in bulk, the importer shall certify that the substance is imported for non-medicinal uses, and if imported otherwise than in bulk, each container shall bear a label indicating that the substance is not intended for medicinal use or is intended for some purposes other than medicinal use or is of commercial quantity. 2 3 4 5 [6. Drugs and Cosmetics imported for manufacture and export by units situated in "Special Economic Zones" as mentioned by the Govt. 2 3 4 5 [6. Drugs and Cosmetics imported for manufacture and export by units situated in "Special Economic Zones" as mentioned by the Govt. of India from time to time The provisions of Chapter III of the act and rules there under which require them to be covered by an import licence, import registration and import through notified port of the entry subject to the conditions that these drugs and cosmetics shall not be diverted for sale in the country. Provided that such imported drugs and cosmetics may be permitted to the domestic area if they meet the requirements of standard procedure for import and registration as required under Chapter III of the act and rule there under. 11. Based on the above, it was contended by the Respondent before the Tribunal that the goods, which answer the description of 'substances not intended for medicinal use', are exempt from the provisions of Chapter III of the Act and Rules made there under to the extent and subject to the conditions specified in the Schedule. 12. The terms "cosmetic" and "drug" are, as noted above, separately defined under the Act. Whereas 'cosmetic' means any article intended to be applied to the human body or any part thereof for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance, 'drug' includes medicines for internal and external use of human beings and animals and all substances intended to be used for diagnosis, treatment, etc. of any disease or disorder in human beings or animals. The definition of 'drug' includes subtances (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the human body. 13. It is obvious that any article qualifying as 'cosmetic', within the definition contained in Section 3(aaa), cannot be called 'substance' within the meaning of the definition of 'drug' contained in Clause (b) of Section 3. Any interpretation to the contrary would render the definition of cosmetic, and in particular the restrictions on import contained in the Act and the Rules in respect of cosmetics, completely nugatory. The Respondent's argument, which was accepted by the Tribunal, that cosmetics imported by it fell under the category of substance, in terms of Schedule D under Rule 43, thus, holds no water. The Respondent's argument, which was accepted by the Tribunal, that cosmetics imported by it fell under the category of substance, in terms of Schedule D under Rule 43, thus, holds no water. So far as cosmetics are concerned, their importation into India cannot be made except through the points of entry specified under Rule 43-A. Rule 43-A contains restrictions in respect of drugs to be imported into India. It specifies the places, through which alone drugs can be imported into India by rail, road, sea or air. By virtue of Rule 133 of the Rules, the restrictions as to the points of entry specified under Rule 43-A have been made applicable to all cosmetics imported into India. Rule 132 gives exemption to cosmetics specified in Schedule D. Cosmetics specified in Schedule D are cosmetics which are imported for manufacture and export by units situated in "Special Economic Zones" as mentioned by Government of India (Item 6 of Schedule D); cosmetics generally cannot be said to be entitled to exemption as substances not intended for medicinal use (Item 1 of Schedule D). 14. The Tribunal appears to have misdirected itself into considering the issue as to whether the goods imported by the Respondent were medicinal goods or not. The real question before the Tribunal was whether the goods were cosmetics, and not being cosmetics specified in Schedule D, namely, imported for manufacture and export by an SEZ unit, were covered by Rule 133 of the Rules, so far as restrictions of point of entry is concerned. That question, as we have noted above, is clearly to be decided in favour of the Customs Authorities. 15. Once it is held that the import of goods by the Respondent is contrary to the prohibition contained in Rule 133 of the Rules, it is a foregone conclusion that the goods are improperly imported, and are liable to be confiscated under Clause (d) of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. The action of the Commissioner in confiscating the goods, accordingly, cannot be faulted. 16. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds. The question of law is answered in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the Appellant Commissioner of Customs. The impugned Order of the Tribunal dated 23.12.2009 is quashed and set aside.