1994 (8) TMI 152

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ating Authority. However, after hearing Shri B.N. Chattopadhyay, learned Consultant for the applicant Company and the learned S.D.R., Shri Saha on the other hand, the Miscellaneous Application No. 115/94 is allowed. In this connection, the learned S.D.R., Shri Saha relied on the following decisions :- (i) 1989 (41) E.L.T. 522 and (ii) AIR 1957 SC 912. In the Supreme Court decision, their Lordships held that the appellant did not produce documents in the High Court. Therefore, the documents were not looked into by the Supreme Court. In the instant case, the applicant Company had produced the documents in question before the Collector (Appeals). 2. Shri Saha further relied upon a decision reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. - 164. But in this .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e respondent Company. In this literature, it is stated that DAP Monomers can also be used as reactive plasticisers. But it is only a usage. The learned S.D.R. also relied upon the dictionary meaning of `plasticisers . He, therefore, stated that the DAP Monomer is a plasticiser and they are in the negative list-I, Sl. No. 7 of Export Import Policy, 1992-97. The learned Consultant, Shri Chattopadhyay referred to several certificates produced along with the Application for additional evidence and stated that they are not plasticisers. He also stated that the meaning as understood in Trade Parlance is to be taken into account to find whether they are plasticisers. In this connection, he relied upon the following decisions :- (i) 1983 (13) E .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... be taken into account. These facts were discussed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) also and he has come to the conclusion that the same is not a plasticiser. There are no grounds to interfere with the same. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for me to look into the additional documents produced by the respondent Company also, wherein it is stated that similar goods are also allowed clearance by the Customs Department. This fact was also taken into consideration by the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) who held that when there was a release of such goods by the Customs no ground is made out for confiscation. However, it is for the Department to show that the goods imported by the respondents are plasticisers and the bu .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X