Case Details: Bans International Versus Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) (2025) 30 Centax 430 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, JJ.
- S/Shri Priyadarshi Manish, Aman Ahluwalia, Shreyansh Kushwaha, Advs. & Mrs Anjali Jha Manish, AOR, for the Petitioner.
Facts of the Case
The appellant-importers had imported plastic mounts and heads such as trigger sprays, lotion pumps, and fine mist sprayers, designed to be affixed atop plastic bottles to dispense contents either as a spray or gel, commonly used for sanitisers during the COVID-19 pandemic. These goods were assessed by Customs under Tariff Entry 9616 10 10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, relating to ‘scent sprays and similar toilet sprays, and mounts and heads therefor’. However, the appellants contended that the correct classification should fall under Heading 8424—specifically Entries 8424 20 00, 8424 90 00, or 8493 91—arguing that the goods were not intended for scents or toilet preparations but were mechanical appliances used for spraying sanitisers.
The dispute originated from differing interpretations between the appellant-importers and the jurisdictional customs authorities, and was adjudicated by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), which upheld the Department’s classification. The matter was eventually brought before the Hon’ble Supreme Court through delayed appeals filed by the importers.
Supreme Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that there was no good reason to interfere with the CESTAT’s order and dismissed the appeals both as time-barred and on merits. It was observed that the subject goods were specifically classifiable under Tariff Entry 9616 10 10 as mounts and heads for ‘scent sprays and similar toilet sprays’, irrespective of their actual use for sanitisers.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Principal Commissioner v. Bans International — (2025) 30 Centax 429 (Tri. – Del.) — Affirmed [Para 2]
