COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CALCUTTA Vs. G C JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2002 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Bench, Kolkata in appeal Nos. CRV-75 and 74 of 1999, whereby the Tribunal had allowed the appeal of the Respondents and set aside the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs on the ground that the Butyl Acryl ate Monomer i.e. the chemical imported by the Respondents can safely be held to be an adhesive and was covered by the advance licences produces by the Respondents.

(2.) As per the facts on record the Respondents, M/s. Sanghvi Overseas imported 14 consignments of Butyl Acryl ate Monomer (hereinafter referred to as BAM) between April and December, 1997 and cleared the same against advanced licenses by availing the benefit of customs Notification Nos. 203/92 and 79/95, without payment of duty. Another consignment of BAM was cleared by the Respondents under bill of entry dated 06.03.1998 and thereafter one more consignment was imported. The last two consignments were warehoused and not cleared by the authorities.

(3.) In all these consignments of BAM, the Respondents declared the product as Butyl Acryl ate Monomer and claimed the classification under heading 2916.12. The assessments were sought by the Respondents as adhesives under the DEEC license.