COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. CANDID ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under appeal is an order of the Customs, excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal declining to condone the delay on the part of the Revenue in filing the appeal before it and, therefore, dismissing the appeal

(2.) The respondent had claimed that 'acrylamide' was a synthetic adhesive and, therefore, entitled to duty free clearance against value based advanced licences pertaining to the export of leather goods. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs rejected the claim. The commissioner (Appeals) accepted the claim.

(3.) Before these authorities the respondent relied upon the opinion of V. M. Divate, tanning Expert and Superintendent, Government institute of Leather Technology, Mumbai, a certificate from Mitsubishi Chemicals, a certificate from Professor D. D. Kale, University department of Chemical Technolgy, Mumbai, and the opinion of the Deputy Chief Chemist.