Allowed

M/S. Goodless Neolac Paints Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Sept 2009WP/3219/1991

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns the classification of Ethyl/Butyl Glycol for customs duty purposes. The court held that a typographical error in the notification, which listed goods under Tariff Heading 29.05 instead of 2909.43, did not preclude the petitioner from claiming concessional duty. The petition was made absolute, granting the benefit of the notification.

What did the court decide?

Petition made absolute in terms of interim order; benefit of Notification no.39/90 and concessional duty granted.

M/S. Goodless Neolac Paints Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Customs and Excise | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

abs

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3219 OF 1991

¶5

M/s Goodless Nerolac Paints Ltd. .. Petitioner V/s

¶6

Union of India & Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Mr. Kamal Bulchandani with Ms. Tulsi Zaveri i/b Kamal & Co. for the petitioner.

¶8

Mr. P.S. Jetly with Mr. Rohit Pardeshi for the respondents.

¶9

CORAM : FERDINO I. REBELLO & D.G. KARNIK, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009

¶11

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.)

¶12

The petitioner had imported Ethyl/Butyl Glycol as described in para 4 of the petition. On arrival of the said goods, the petitioner filed bills of entry. According to the petitioner, the said goods appear at sr. no. 243 of Appendix 3A of AM-90-93 Policy which sets out list of limited permissible items. The petitioner imported the said goods specifically against four REP Licences. According to the petitioner, the entry at sr. no. 243 of Appendix 3A allows import of “Glycolethers”. Ethyl/Butyl Glycol are classified for assessment

¶13

¶14

under Customs Tariff Heading 2909.43. The respondents, however, after allowing earlier clearance under Tariff Heading 2909.43 sought to classify the goods under Tariff Hearing 29.05. According to the petitioner, though Ethyl/Butyl Glycol is specifically classifiable under Tariff Heading 2909.43 and this fact is accepted by the respondents, nevertheless the respondents first suggested classification under Tariff Heading 29.05 and later accepted classification under Tariff Heading 2909.43. Notification no.39/90 under which the exemption is granted, Butyl Glycol is wrongly classified under Tariff Heading 29.05. According to the petitioner, the respondents have accepted the typographical error and therefore have been granting duty concession under the notification to several importers under sr. no.8 of the said Notification no.39/90 dated 20^th March 1990 as amended by Notification no.60/91 dated 25^th July 1991. In spite of the same, the petitioner has been denied the concessional rate of duty under sr. no.8 of the said notification by wrongly classifying it under Tariff Heading 29.05. According to the petitioner, the respondents are refusing the concessional duty at sr. no.8 and are seeking to clear additional duty at sr. no.8 of the same notification.

¶15

The petitioner filed two bills of entry for exbonding of the said goods under CWAB No.01532 and 01533 specifically for clearance of the said goods for home consumption. The respondents, however, refused to extend

¶16

¶17

the benefit of concessional duty. Consequently the present petition.

¶18

At the admission stage, when Rule was granted, minutes of the order were filed and the petitioner was allowed to clear the goods under the bills of entry on payment of duty as per the notification dated 20^th March 1990 on the footing that the duty is leviable as prescribed at sr. no.8 of the said notification.

¶19

Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents by Mr. A.M. Sahay, Deputy Commissioner of Customs. According to the respondents, the petitioner was not entitled to the benefit of the notification as the notification does not cover the goods which have been classified under Tariff Heading 2909.43.

¶20

Subsequent to the order of this Court, the respondents had filed an affidavit of Mr. D. Mohankumar, Joint Director, Chemical Laboratory, New Custom House. In para 2 of the said affidavit, it has been set out that Ethyl/Butyl Glycol are chemically Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether and Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether respectively. Both the items contain ether and alcohol function groups and hence ether/alcohol finding mentioned under Customs Tariff Heading 2909.

¶21

¶22

We have perused the relevant notification. Though the goods at column 3 of the table have been referred to as Ethyl Glycol and Butyl Glycol, insofar as column 2 are concerned they are shown under Tariff Heading 29.05. In the first part of the notification, it is mentioned that the Central Government in public interest exempts the goods specified under column 3 of the table. It is therefore clear that what is exempted was Ethyl Glycol and Butyl Glycol. The affidavits of the expert of the respondents would themselves show that they fall under Tariff Heading 2909.43. Clearly therefore the entry under column no.2 of Tariff Heading 29.05 is a typographical error and the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit solely on that ground.

¶23

In the light of the above, the petition is made absolute in terms of the interim order already passed in this petition.

¶24

(D.G. KARNIK, J.)

¶25

(FERDINO I. REBELLO, J.)

M/S. Goodless Neolac Paints Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Goodless Neolac Paints Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Bhutada Vs the Union of India and 3 Ors.

The Commissioner Central Excise Thane Vs M/S. Hi-Tech Fabrics Processors

C.K. Mandal Vs Assistant Commissioner of Service Tax, Dn III and 3 Ors.

The Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Mumbai Vs Leela Scottish Lace Pvt. Ltd.

Famous Cine LABandSTUDIOS Vs Union of India

The Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai-Vi Vs Sang Fastner Pvt. Ltd. Thane