GOODLASS NEROLAC PAINTS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 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 20th March 1990 as amended by Notification no. 60/91 dated 25th 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.

(2.) 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 the benefit of concessional duty. Consequently the present petition.

(3.) 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 20th March 1990 on the footing that the duty is leviable as prescribed at sr. no. 8 of the said notification.