G.C. JAIN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the appeals are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Calcutta. As per the facts on record the appellants, M/s. Sanghvi Overseas imported 14 consignments of Butyl Acrylate Monomer (hereinafter referred to as BAM) between April and December, 1997 and cleared the same against advanced licences by availing the benefit of customs Notfn. Nos. 203/92 and 79/95, without payment of duty. Another consignment of BAM was cleared by the appellant under bill of entry dt. 6 -3 -98 and thereafter one more consignment was imported sequently. The last two consignments were warehoused and not cleared. In all these consignments of BAM, the appellant declared the product as Butyl Acrylate Monomer and claimed the classification under heading 2916.12. The assessments were sought by the appellants as adhesives under the DEEC licence.

(2.) ENQUIRIES were initiated by the Revenue against the appellants on the belief that the product imported by the appellant was defined organic chemical and was not an adhesive and the advanced licences covering imports of adhesives submitted by the appellant for clearance of the consignments under DEEC scheme availing the benefit of customs notification were not applicable in the matter of clearance of the goods in question inasmuch as the said licences were for import of adhesives and the product was not adhesive. Accordingly searches were conducted in the offices of the appellants and their statements, etc., were recorded. The customs clearing agent was also interrogated and efforts were made to find out as to whether the product in question was used as a bonding agent or not. Shri R.K. Jain in his statement recorded during such investigations deposed that the product was used as a bonding agent and on polymerisation the same become an adhesive. The Revenue also drew the sample and sent it for testing. The Revenue also sought the opinion of the various experts as also the persons of the trade dealing in identical items. On the basis of the material collected during investigations the Revenue formed an opinion that the BAM in question was not adhesive but was one of the raw materials for adhesive formations. As such Revenue entertained a view that the exemption has been wrongly claimed by the appellant. They also disputed the value of the goods in question.

(3.) ON the above basis the appellants were served with a show cause notice proposing confirmation of demand of duty, as also confiscation of the imported product and imposition of personal penalties upon the various persons.