Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Johnson and Johnson Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Johnson and Johnson Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jan 02, 2004
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33651

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Customs

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Customs

Key legal issue
Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Johnson and Johnson Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In
(2004)(92)ECC321

Excerpt

.....size and shape for making adhesive labels. the cth 39.19 covers "self-adhesive plates, sheets, film, foil, tape, strip and other flat shapes of plastics, whether or not in rolls", while cth 3926.90 covers other articles of plastic not elsewhere specified. in other words, heading 39.26 is a residuary entry. we find that the goods clearly answer the description of goods covered by pleading 39.19 which covers all varieties of self-adhesive films of plastic. the goods are not articles so as to fall within the residuary entry. it appears from the impugned order that the classification under heading 39.26 has been upheld on the basis of what the goods would become after being put to use in the appellants' factory that is labels. however, it is well recognized that classification of imported goods must be on the basis of what the goods are when presented for assessment. applying this test, the imported goods as presented for assessment are clearly plastic films and therefore fall for classification under cth 3919.90.the finding of the commissioner (appeals) that the goods would not qualify as self-adhesive film within the ambit of heading 39.19 for the reason that none of the sides are permanently tacky in the form in which it has been imported, is not borne out by any material on record such as test report etc.4. in the light of the above discussion, we hold that the goods in question are classifiable under customs tariff heading 3919.90 and can be cleared under ogl, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Full Judgment

1. The appellants herein imported a consignment of self-adhesive reflective film, classified the goods under Customs Tariff Heading 3919.90 and sought clearance under OGL. The department was of the view that the goods which were reflective film ingrained with metallic pieces, were appropriately classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 3926.90 and that the import could be allowed only against a special import licence as per the provisions of ITC (HS) Exim Code 39269009.20.

The goods were confiscated, as the appellants could not produce licence for their clearance, with option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 75,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- was also imposed upon the importers, by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The Commissioner (Appeals) having upheld the order of adjudication, the above appeal has come to be preferred to the Tribunal.

2. The appellants have asked for a decision on merits; hence we heard the learned SDR and perused the records.

3. There is no dispute that the goods are self-adhesive film in jumbo rolls. They are reflective films ingrained with metallic pieces responsible for the reflection of light. The goods are to be used for captive consumption in the importer's plant after slitting to required size and shape for making adhesive labels. The CTH 39.19 covers "self-adhesive plates, sheets, film, foil, tape, strip and other flat shapes of plastics, whether or not in rolls", while CTH 3926.90 covers other articles of plastic not elsewhere specified. In other words, Heading 39.26 is a residuary entry. We find that the goods clearly answer the description of goods covered by Pleading 39.19 which covers all varieties of self-adhesive films of plastic. The goods are not articles so as to fall within the residuary entry. It appears from the impugned order that the classification under Heading 39.26 has been upheld on the basis of what the goods would become after being put to use in the appellants' factory that is labels. However, it is well recognized that classification of imported goods must be on the basis of what the goods are when presented for assessment. Applying this test, the imported goods as presented for assessment are clearly plastic films and therefore fall for classification under CTH 3919.90.

The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods would not qualify as self-adhesive film within the ambit of Heading 39.19 for the reason that none of the sides are permanently tacky in the form in which it has been imported, is not borne out by any material on record such as test report etc.

4. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the goods in question are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 3919.90 and can be cleared under OGL, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial