Acrylonitrile For Rubber Use Not Covered By Insecticides Act

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

Insecticides Act Applicability
Case Details: Apcotex Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India (2026) 38 Centax 19 (Guj.) 

Judiciary and Counsel Details

  • A.S. Supehia & Pranav Trivedi, JJ.
  • Shri Anand Nainawati, for the Petitioner.
  • S/Shri Ankit Shah & CB Gupta, Priyank P Lodha, for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

The assessee, being the petitioner, imported Acrylonitrile for use in the manufacture of synthetic rubber and not for any insecticidal purpose, and contended that such imports fell outside the regulatory scope of the Insecticides Act, 1968. It was submitted that by virtue of clause (b) of Section 38 of the Insecticides Act, 1968, where a substance is imported and used for a non-insecticidal purpose, the provisions of the said Act do not apply, and consequently the requirement of registration under Section 9 thereof does not arise. The petitioner further contended that, in such circumstances, there was no requirement to obtain any registration or import permit from the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee, and that Public Notice F. No. 04-01/2022-CIR-I, dated 17-02-2022, could not be applied to Acrylonitrile imported for non-insecticidal use, placing reliance on Sections 5 and 3 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The matter was accordingly placed before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that Acrylonitrile imported for non-insecticidal purposes was covered by clause (b) of Section 38 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and, therefore, the provisions of the said Act were not applicable. The Court held that once Section 38 applied, the requirement of registration under Section 9 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 did not arise and, consequently, no import permit from the Central Insecticides Board and Registration Committee was required. The Court further held that Public Notice F. No. 04-01/2022-CIR-I, dated 17-02-2022 could not be applied to such imports. The petitions were accordingly allowed.

List of Cases Cited

  • Deputy Commissioner v. M. Chandrasekhar — 2018 (10) TMI 1160 — Relied on [Paras 3, 8.1, 9, 14, 15]

Leave Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Stories
CBIC Notifies Bhogapuram as Customs Airport

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

January 17, 2026

CBIC Updates Tariff Values For Edible Oils And Metals

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

January 15, 2026

COFEPOSA Detention Quashed For Ignoring Bail Parity | SC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 14, 2026

Customs Cannot Recover Duty After DGFT Discharge | CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 14, 2026

Vehicle Seizure Upheld As Source of Funds Not Proved

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 13, 2026

Aluminium Mushroom Shelves Classified Under CTI 76109010 | SC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 12, 2026

Seized Gold to Be Released Due to Delay in SCN | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 9, 2026

Look Out Circular Cannot Continue Without Review | HC

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 8, 2026

Only DGFT Can Cancel DEPB Scrips, Not Customs CESTAT

Customs • News • Case Chronicles

January 6, 2026

SCMTR Declaration Deadline Extended to 31 March 2026 | CBIC Notification 79/2025

Customs • News • Statutory Scope

January 5, 2026