NDLI: Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. G. C. Jain and Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Customs Act 1962:
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962)
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	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 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 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 DEEC scheme - Held: The word "adhesive" was 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 - 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 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 allegation 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 - Also the demand is hit by the bar of limitation 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 , 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 '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 was changed their opinion as regards the adhesive character of BAM, extended period cannot be invoked against them - As such the demand of duty in respect of the consignments is also barred by limitation. Words and Phrases - Interpretation of - Held: Words and :expressions, unless defined in the statute have to be construed in the sense in which persons dealing with them COURT understand i.e. as per trade and understanding and usage.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 439
Petitioner	Commissioner Of Customs, Calcutta
Respondent	G. C. Jain And Anr.
SCR	[2011] 8 S.C.R. 798
Judgement Date	2011-07-04
Case Number	6334-35

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. G. C. Jain and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Etc. Etc. Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta & Another Vs. Biecco Lawrie Ltd.

Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Sheikh Mohd. Omer Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta & Ors.

Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. South India Television (p) Ltd.

M/s. Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Virgo Steels, Bombay and Anr.

Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd.

M/s Relax Safety Industries, Mumbai and Anr. Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, (import), Mumbai

Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. G. C. Jain and Anr.

Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. G. C. Jain and Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Etc. Etc. Vs. M/s. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and Anr.

Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta & Another Vs. Biecco Lawrie Ltd.

Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Sheikh Mohd. Omer Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta & Ors.

Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. South India Television (p) Ltd.

M/s. Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Ors.

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai Vs. M/s. Virgo Steels, Bombay and Anr.

Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. Indian Rayon & Industries Ltd.

M/s Relax Safety Industries, Mumbai and Anr. Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, (import), Mumbai

Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta Vs. G. C. Jain and Anr.