1987 (12) TMI 51 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Liability of imported goods to additional customs duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act.
2. Inclusion of packing charges and post-importation charges in the assessable value for customs duty.
3. Constitutional validity of Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act.
4. Exemption notifications and their applicability to customs and additional customs duty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Liability of Imported Goods to Additional Customs Duty:
The petitioner contended that the imported PVC Resin was not liable to additional customs duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act. They argued that notifications issued under Section 25 of the Customs Act exempted any customs duty in excess of 75% ad valorem, including additional customs duty. However, the court referenced the Supreme Court's decisions in Union of India v. M/s. Modi Rubber Ltd. and Khandelwal Metal and Engg. Works v. Union of India, which clarified that exemptions under Section 25 of the Customs Act apply specifically to the customs duty and not to additional customs duty unless explicitly stated. The court concluded that the notifications did not exempt the goods from additional customs duty.

2. Inclusion of Packing Charges and Post-Importation Charges:
The petitioner argued that packing charges and post-importation charges (landing and stevedoring charges) should not be included in the assessable value for customs duty. The court examined the relevant statutory provisions, including Sections 12, 14, and 15 of the Customs Act, and the Customs Valuation Rules, 1963. It was determined that these charges are part of the cost of making the goods available at the place of importation and must be included in the assessable value. The court cited the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Apar Private Ltd. v. Union of India and the Karnataka High Court decision in B.S. Kamath and Co. v. Union of India to support this conclusion.

3. Constitutional Validity of Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act:
The petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, arguing it was beyond the legislative competence of Parliament and violated Articles 19 and 300A of the Constitution. The court rejected this contention, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Khandelwal Metal and Engg. Works v. Union of India, which upheld the legislative competence of Parliament to enact these provisions. The court found no basis to deem Section 3(2) constitutionally invalid.

4. Exemption Notifications:
The petitioner relied on various exemption notifications to argue that the imported goods should be exempt from additional customs duty. The court analyzed the language of the notifications and concluded that they did not apply to additional customs duty unless explicitly stated. The court held that the exemption notifications under Section 25 of the Customs Act related only to the customs duty and did not extend to additional customs duty under Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act.

Individual Writ Petitions:
- W.P. No. 8849/83: The court directed the exclusion of packing charges from the assessable value for customs duty and additional customs duty but rejected all other contentions.
- W.P. No. 8850/1983: Similar to W.P. No. 8849/83, the court directed the exclusion of packing charges and rejected other contentions.
- W.P. No. 8851/1983: The court followed the judgment in W.P. No. 8850/1983 and granted the same relief.
- W.P. No. 8852/1983: The court granted relief regarding the exclusion of packing charges and rejected other contentions.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petitions except for the relief regarding the exclusion of packing charges from the assessable value for customs duty and additional customs duty. The petitioner was directed to pay the balance amount of duty after the reassessment excluding the packing charges. The request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused.

← Previous Next →