2009 (9) TMI 40 - HC - Customs

Classification of Ethyl/Butyl Glycol held that - Though the goods at column 3 of the table have been referred to as Ethyl Glycol and Butyl Glycol, insofar as column 2 are concerned they are shown under Tariff Heading 29.05. In the first part of the notification, it is mentioned that the Central Government in public interest exempts the goods specified under column 3 of the table. It is therefore clear that what is exempted was Ethyl Glycol and Butyl Glycol. The affidavits of the expert of the respondents would themselves show that they fall under Tariff Heading 2909.43. Clearly therefore the entry under column no.2 of Tariff Heading 29.05 is a typographical error and the petitioner cannot be denied the benefit solely on that ground.

Summary

Issues: Classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Heading, Denial of concessional duty, Typographical error in the classification

Classification of imported goods under the Customs Tariff Heading:
The petitioner imported Ethyl/Butyl Glycol and filed bills of entry claiming classification under Tariff Heading 2909.43, which allows import of "Glycolethers". The respondents initially sought to classify the goods under Tariff Heading 29.05 instead of 2909.43. The petitioner argued that Ethyl/Butyl Glycol should be classified under 2909.43, which was accepted by the respondents later. The notification granting duty exemption had a typographical error, classifying Butyl Glycol under Tariff Heading 29.05. The Court found that Ethyl/Butyl Glycol fell under Tariff Heading 2909.43 based on expert affidavits, and the typographical error should not deny the petitioner the concessional duty.

Denial of concessional duty:
The petitioner filed two bills of entry for clearance of goods for home consumption, seeking the benefit of concessional duty under a specific notification. However, the respondents refused to extend the concessional duty benefit to the petitioner, leading to the filing of the present petition. The Court allowed the petitioner to clear the goods on payment of duty as per the notification, emphasizing the entitlement of the petitioner to the concessional duty under the correct Tariff Heading.

Typographical error in the classification:
The Court noted that the notification exempted Ethyl Glycol and Butyl Glycol, which were chemically identified as Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether and Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether, falling under Tariff Heading 2909.43. Despite the initial classification error under Tariff Heading 29.05 in the notification, the Court held that the petitioner should not be denied the benefit of concessional duty solely based on this typographical error. The petition was made absolute in terms of the interim order passed, affirming the petitioner's entitlement to the concessional duty under the correct Tariff Heading.