Case Details: Bangalore Mono Filaments Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs (Exports), Chennai (2026) 40 Centax 60 (S.C.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Manmohan & Vipul M. Pancholi, JJ.
- S/Shri K.V. Balakrishanan, R.K. Raghavan, Devesh Kr. Khanduri, Advs. & K.V. Mohan, AOR, for the Appellant.
- S/Shri Raghvendra P. Shankar, A.S.G., Ms Pallavi Mishra, Udayaditya Banerjee, Alankar Gupta & Karan Lahiri, Advs. & Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR, for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
Proceedings arose in relation to the import of goods under an advance licence issued under the Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) Scheme. The appellant imported the goods on the basis of a licence that was valid at the time it was transferred to the importer and the goods were subsequently warehoused without payment of duty. At the time of clearance of the goods from the warehouse, the advance licence had already expired, and the department denied the benefit of the exemption available under the DEEC licence. The appellant contended that the exemption should remain available since the licence was valid on the date it was transferred and the goods were imported under that licence. The matter was accordingly placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
High Court Held
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that under Section 15 read with Section 68 of the Customs Act, 1962, the relevant date for the determination of the rate of duty and eligibility for exemption in respect of warehoused goods is the date on which the goods are cleared from the warehouse for home consumption. It was observed that although the advance licence was valid at the time it was transferred to the importer, the licence had expired by the time the goods were cleared from the warehouse. The Court held that the liability to pay customs duty arises upon clearance of the goods from the warehouse, and the entitlement to exemption must therefore exist on that date. In this regard, the Court affirmed the finding that the benefit of exemption under the DEEC licence was unavailable and dismissed the appeal in favour of the department.
List of Cases Reviewed
- Commissioner v. Bangalore Mono Filaments P. Ltd. — 2009 (241) E.L.T. 172 (Mad.) — Affirmed [Para 7]
List of Cases Cited
- Pratibha Processors v. Union of India — 1996 (88) E.L.T. 12 (S.C.) — Relied on [Paras 5, 7]
