1994 (7) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT

Whether the higher rates indicated by the impugned Notification No. 142/86-Cus., dated 13th February, 1986 were attracted?

Held that:- no substance in the contention that notwithstanding the publication in the Official Gazette there was yet a failure to make the law known and that, therefore, the notification did not acquire the elements of operativeness and enforceability. This contention of Sri Ganesh is unacceptable.

The notes which are part of the Tariff provisions read with the Tariff indicate that the `parts' and components of Ball and Roller Bearings are not excluded as contended. This contention has no substance. As indicated earlier the rates prescribed in the impugned notification do not also exceed the rates of statutory duty. The second contention of Sri Ganesh is not substantial either.

A tax, in particular, in the nature of duties of customs is not per se violative of Article 19(1)(g). Mere excessiveness of a tax is not, by iteself, violative of Article 19(1)(g). This question cannot be divorced from the nature of the right to import. There is no absolute right much less a fundamental right to import.That apart, no factual foundations are laid to demonstrate how this impost has had the effect of destroying the petitioner's right to carry on a trade or business. This contention also has no merit. Appeal dismissed.