LexCOMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA versus G. C. JAIN AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c (2011] 8 S.C.R. 798 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA v. G. C. JAIN AND ANR. (Civil Appeal Nos.6334-35 of 2003) JULY 4, 2011 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] Customs Act, 1962: Classification - Adhesives - Demand of duty on import of Butyl Acrylate Monomer(BAM) - Invocation of extended period of limitation - Respondents imported consignments of BAM and cleared them as adhesives against advanced 0 licenses without payment of duty - Commissioner held that BAM was not adhesive and the benefit of the advance licences was not available to the respondents and accordingly· confirmed the demand of duty by invoking the extended and longer period of limitation on the ground that respondents had E mis-declared the product in question - Respondents filed appeal before the Tribunal which was allowed - Whether BAM, which attained adhesive properties on polymerisation, could be said to be an adhesive for the purpose of allowing duty free clearances against advance license issued under the DEEG scheme - Held: The word "adhesive" was F mentioned in the ex-Bond BIE inasmuch as the appellant sought release of goods under advance licences allowing adhesive as duty free import - The goods were chemically tested in the Customs House and were cleared after satisfaction of the proper officer that BAM is an adhesive - G There was no question of suppression of any fact before customs authorities because no fact was concealed - Also, in the technical literature given by the manufacturer, use of the product has been shown as adhesives - BAM, an Acrylate Ester, can be polymerised by using water to prepare the H 798 COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA v. G. C. 799 JAIN AND ANR. 'aqueous emulsion dispersion' which is used in the 'Leather A Industry' as a 'Coating or Binder' to be an Adhesive - No reason why BAM which on aqueous dispersion can be used as a binder in 'Leather Industry', should be denied the benefit · of considering the same as adhesives - When the licences produced entitled the Respondents to clear the ex-bond B goods free of duty, there were no reasons for them to have mis-declared the values since the goods were duty free - No a/legation that the licences produced will not cover the quantity of values, even after the alleged loading of values as declared - Therefore, decision of the Tribunal upheld - c Also the demand is hit by the bar of /imitation inasmuch as the appellant had cleared the goods in question after declaring the same in the bills of entries and giving correct classification of the same - Availing of benefit of a notification, which the Revenue subsequently formed an opinion was not available, cannot lead to the charge of mis-declaration or mis-statement, etc. and even if an importer has wrongly claimed his benefit D , of the exemption, it is for the department to find out the correct legal position and to allow or disallow the same - In the instant case the appellant had declared the goods as Butyl Acrylate Monomer with correct classification of the same and· the word E 'adhesive' was added in the ex-bond bill as per the appellant's understanding that BAM is an adhesive - In these circumstances it was for the Revenue to check whether BAM was covered by the expression adhesive or not and if even after drawing of samples they allowed the clearances to be effective as an adhesive, the appellant cannot be held responsible for the same and subsequently, if the Revenue F ~as changed their opinion as regards the adhesive character bf BAM, extended period cannot be invoked against them - 4s such the demand of duty in respect of the consignments G is also barred by limitation. Words and Phrases - Interpretation of - Held: Words and :Jxpressions, unless defined in the statute have to be fonstrued in the sense in which persons dealing with them H 800 SUPREME COURT .REPORTS· (2011) 8 S.C.R. A understand i.e. as per trade and understanding and usage. The Respondents imported consignments of Butyl Acrylate Monomer (BAM) and cleared them as adhesives against advanced licenses without payment of duty. The 8 appellant-Revenue issued show cause notice to the respondents proposing confirmation of demand of duty, as also confiscation of the imported product and Imposition of personal penalties alleging that the product imported by the respondents was defined organic C chemical and was not an adhesive and exemption had been wr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.