Case Law Details
Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs G. C. Jain and another (Supreme Court of India)- Respondents imported 14 consignments of Butyl Acrylate Monomer (BAM) and cleared the same against advanced licenses by availing the benefit of customs notification nos. 203/92-Cus. and 79/95-Cus., without payment of duty – 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 impugned product imported by the respondents was defined organic chemical and was not an adhesive and exemption had been wrongly claimed by the respondents- On appeal, Commissioner held that BAM was not adhesive and the benefit of the advance licences and the impugned notification was not available to the respondents – Tribunal allowed the appeals filed by the respondents stating that BAM can be rightly classified as an adhesive and therefore, the respondents had rightfully claimed the clearance of goods on the basis of advanced licences – Hence, the instant petitions – (A) Whether BAM can be said to be an adhesive for the purpose of allowing the duty free clearances against advance license issued under the DEEC scheme? – Held, the word ‘adhesive’ was mentioned in the ex-Bond Bill of Entry inasmuch as the appellant sought release of goods under advance licences allowing adhesive as duty free import – In any event impugned goods were chemically tested in the Customs House and goods were cleared after satisfaction of the proper officer that BAM was an adhesive – Therefore, the 14 consignments were cleared on the basis of advance licence under Customs Notification No. 203/92-Cus. or 79/95-Cus. – Customs authorities cleared the goods consciously knowing fully well that BAM was an adhesive – Moreover, it was also noted that in the technical literature given by the manufacturer, use of the product has been shown as adhesives – Even though the Revenue had disputed that the said literature produced by the respondents was not correct and was manipulated inasmuch as the same was different than the manufacturer of identical product in India, however, no concrete evidence to that effect has been led by the Revenue – Hence, respondents rightly classified BAM to be an adhesive – (B) Limitation – Held, the demand was hit by the bar of limitation inasmuch as the respondents have cleared the impugned goods 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 had wrongly claimed his benefit of the exemption, it was for the department to find out the correct legal position and to allow or disallow the same – In the instant case, the respondents have declared the goods as BAM with correct classification of the same and the word ‘adhesive’ was added in the ex-bond bill as per the respondent’s understanding that BAM was 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 have allowed the clearances to be effective as an adhesives appellant cannot be held responsible for the same and subsequently, if the Revenue has changed their opinion as regards the adhesive character of BAM, extended period cannot be invoked against them – Hence, the demand of duty in respect of 14 consignments was also barred by limitation – Revenue’s appeal dismissed.
Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. G.C. Jain & ANR.
Decided by – Supreme Court of India
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6334- 6335 of 2003
Decided on – July 4, 2011
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
