COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY versus BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 641 · Decided: 20-04-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

>. 
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY 
v • 
. BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD. 
APilIL 20, 1988 
[SABYASACJIT MUKHARJI ANDS. RANGANATHAN, JI.] 
Customs Tariff Act, 1975: Chapters 28 & 29 & Headings 39.01/06 
and 38. 0 l/ 19( 6 )-"Plasticizers not otherwise specified" -Interpretation 
of-"Sancticizer 429"-Levy of duty on-Not separately defmed 
chemical compounds. 
A 
B 
Statutory · lnterpretation:-Customs and Excise Statutes-Tariff C 
entries-How goods are known in the trade· and trade literature--
Relevancy of. 
The respondents who imported 'Sancticizer 429', contested the 
levy of duty by the Department and rtled a claim for refund, which was 
D 
rejected by the Assistant Collector on .the ground, that on test the 
product was found to be organic compound (easter-type) of colourless 
viscose liquid and as per 7 .O· 046 should be considered a polymeric 
plasticizer. 
E 
On appeal, the Appellate Collector came to the conclnsion that 
Chapter 38 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 was residuary in natnre and 
that if the item was uot covered by any other Chapter of the Tariff Act 
only then it would fall under the said Chapter. He also found that linear 
polysters were covered by CCCN 39.0l(E) and that the goods in ques· 
_j · tion are formed by the condensation of diabasic acid within dihydric 
f · alcohols and were similar to the polycondensatlon products of terpht· F 
halic acid or adipic acid with ethanediel covered by the aforesaid CCCN 
headings, which corresponds to 39.01/06 of the Cnstoms Tariff Act, 
1975. The Appellate Collector upheld the decision of the Assistant 
1-l 
Collector. 
r 
The respondent appealed to the Customs Excise and Gold Control G 
Appellate Tribunal which allowed the appeals taking the view that 
plasticizers were not resins, but are added to resins to impart better 
flexibility of plastic properties to the latter, that 'Sanctlcizer 429' is . · 
admittedly a plasticizer and would therefore not have fallen for classifi· . 
cation under Heading No. 39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Schedule as It 
stood before amendment in 1978 and that the product was classlf"1able 
H 
641 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
642 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19881 3 S.C.R. 
under heading 38.01/19(6) of the Tariff Act. 
Dismissing the Appeals of the Revenue, this Court, 
HELD: I. As per various technical authorities, plasticizers are 
not resins. These are added to resins to impart better flexibility or 
plastic properties to them. These are not plastic materials by themselves 
either. [ 6448 I 
2. The goods under reference in the instant case, are not similar 
to resols or polysiobutylenes. Their classification under Heading 
39.01/06 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, prior to and even after its 
amendment in 1978, should not be applicable. Not being separately 
defined chemical compunds, these would also not fall within Chapter 28 
or 29 of the Act. Since these are not specified elsewhere their 
appropr}ate classification would be under Heading No. 38.01/19(6) as 
"Plasticizers, not elsewhere specified". [ 645C I 
3. In these matters how a good is known in the trade and treated 
in the trade literature is relevant and significant and often decisive 
factor. [645DI 
"Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology" 3rd Edition page 111 
referred to. 
Bhor Industries Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, [1984118 
E.L.T. 521 and Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Bhor Industries Ltd. 
and another, [1985121E.L.T.291 approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 392-
95of1988. 
Appeal under Section 130E(b) of the Central Excise and Salt 
Act, 1944 from the Order dated 15.12.1986 of the Customs Excise 
and Gold (Control)-Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Appeal 
Nos. C/2130 to 2132/86-C & 1027 /83 and Order No. 757-760/86. 
B. Datta, ASG, Mrs. Indira Sawhney and P. Panneshwaran for 
the Petitioners. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. These appeals under Section 
~ 
~ 
,,
·~ 
~ 
~ 
__..; 
~' 
-
-
.~. 
COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. BHOR INDUSTRIES [MUKHARJI, J.] 
643 
130E(b) of the Customs Act 1962 (hereinafter called the Act) are 
against the order dated 15th December,· 1986 passed by the Ctistoms, 
Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter; called. 
CEGAT). These appeals are related to a dispute regarding the duty of 
custom imposed on the respondent. The department had levied duty 
on the product known as 'Sancticizer 429' imported by the respondent. 
The respondent had contested this duty and filed a claim f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.