Dismissed

The Commissioner of Custom v. M/S. Kitex Garments Ltd.

Kerala HC25 Jul 2011Cus.Appeal/3/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment considers whether import duty exemption granted for "buttons" extends to imported parts that form a full operational button upon assembly. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision that the exemption applies to such parts, ensuring competitive export pricing.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; Tribunal's order allowing duty exemption on imported button parts is upheld.

The Commissioner of Custom Vs M/S. Kitex Garments Ltd. — Customs and Excise | Kerala HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN

¶5

MONDAY, THE 25TH JULY 2011 / 3RD SRAVANA 1933

¶6

Cus.Appeal.No. 3 of 2010()

¶7

-------------------------AGAINST ORDER DATED 18/03/2009 IN APPL.C/281/2008 of CUSTOMS,EXCISE&SERVICE TAX APP.TRIBUNAL,BANGALORE ....................

¶8

APPELLANT / RESPONDENT

¶9

¶10

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, WELLINGTON ISLAND, COCHIN-682009.

¶11

BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC,CB EX

¶12

RESPONDENT(S): / APPELLANT

¶13

¶14

M/S.KITEX GARMENTS,P.B.NO.5, KIZHAKKAMBALAM, ALWAYE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,KERALA - 683562.

¶15

ADV. SRI.P.R.VENKETESH SRI.P.R.RAJA

¶16

THIS CUSTOMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/07/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

CUA NO.3/2010

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS ANNEXURE-A : COPY OF ORDER IN ORIGINAL NO.36/2006 DATED 31/08/2006. ANNEXURE-B : COPY OF ORDER IN APPEAL NO.542/2007 DATED 28/11/2007. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg

¶20

C.R.

¶21

C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ.

¶22

.................................................................... CUS. Appeal No.3 of 2010

¶23

Dated this the 25^th day of July, 2011.

¶24

J U D G M E N T

¶25

Ramachandran Nair, J.

¶26

Heard learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent.

¶27

The question raised is whether the CESTAT is justified in holding that the respondent is entitled to duty exemption on import of parts of buttons used for making garments for export. Admittedly the claim is under Notification 21/02 (Customs) dated 01/03/2002 granting exemption from import duty on tags, labels, stickers, belts, buttons or hangers imported by bonafide exporters. The Department's case is that the respondent has not imported the buttons in full but imported only parts of buttons, which are not entitled to exemption. Learned counsel for the respondent produced before the Tribunal the parts of button used in the

¶28

¶29

CUS.Appeal No.3/2010

¶30

making of garments. The Tribunal on being convinced that the parts of button make up full button when fixed on the garment upheld the respondent's eligibility for exemption.

¶31

During hearing of this appeal, the respondent's counsel produced before us the parts of button imported, and on examining the same we notice that four parts of button make a full operational press button on the cloth. In fact, the button operationally consists of two parts, one male and the other female. Each such part is made up of two items, which are riveted from both sides of the cloth to make one part. The corresponding one is fixed on the other part of the cloth, which also has two parts and the fixing is done by riveting. Obviously press button as such cannot be fixed on cloth but only on being fixed on cloths the four parts fixed make into an operational press button. Therefore, in our view the Tribunal rightly assigned the meaning of buttons in the notification covering parts of buttons, which when fixed on the garment turn to be full button. The Department has no case that the

¶32

¶33

CUS.Appeal No.3/2010

¶34

respondent has not utilised the parts of buttons while making the garments for use as full buttons in the garments so made. So much so, benefit of notification can not be declined to the assessee merely because import was button in parts and not in made up form. In our view notification has to be interpreted in such a way as to achieve it's objective and not to defeat it. Duty free import of various items are permitted to help exporters to sell their products at competitive prices in the international market. We, therefore, uphold the order of the Tribunal and dismiss the Departmental Appeal.

¶35

(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE)

¶36

(P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE)

¶37

The Commissioner of Custom v. M/S. Kitex Garments Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Commissioner of Custom v. M/S. Kitex Garments Ltd.

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

Sapna Maria Gomez Vs the University of Kerala and Another

Aneesha Remesh Vs State of Kerala

Rajeev Viswan Vs State Information Commissioner

Parrisons Roller Flour Mills (P) Ltd. Vs the Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax

Union of India and Others Vs K.Vijayakumar

Trivandrum Metals & Electricals Vs State of Kerala