9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (7) TMI 176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. At the outset, Shri Ignatius stated that certain writ petitions filed by the appellants on similar issues were pending in the High Court. He, therefore, requested that decisions on these appeals be kept in abeyance pending disposal of the writ petitions. In reply to our query, he clarified that these writ petitions were not with reference to the particular orders against which the present appeals have been filed, and also that no stay orders had been issued by the High Court in regard to the present proceedings. As we saw no justification for indefinitely postponing a decision on these cases only because writ petitions had been filed on connected issues in some other cases, we proceeded to hear the appeals. 4. The arguments advanced on these issues, in the memorandum of appeal and by Shri Ignatius in the personal hearing before us, are set out below. 5. As regards the landing charges, for which an addition of 0.6% to the CIF value of the goods was made, it has been contended that these would amount to post-importation charges. It has also been contended that the addition actually made in this regard is more than the actual expenses incurred by the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Dai-ichi Karkaria Pvt. Ltd., Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in 1983 (12) E.L.T. 556 (CEGAT) = 1983 E.C.R. 556D (CEGAT). On the argument that it was not the intention of Parliament to levy countervailing duty where such goods were not manufactured in India, Shri Kunhikrishnan submitted that there is no room for any intendment in the construction of a taxing statute. In this connection, he quoted the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, reported in A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 775, and Innanuri Gopalan and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 1964 (2) SCR 888. He further submitted where the wording of an enactment was very clear, there was no question of going into the intendment. 10. Regarding the argument of Shri Ignatius based on the "class of goods", Shri Kunhikrishnan submitted that there was no warrant for dividing all goods into a class of "imported articles" and a class of "indigenous articles" as sought to be done by the appellants, and to say that the two classes were mutually exclusive. 11. In the end, Shri Kunhikrishnan submitted that the appeals had no merit and should be rejected. 12. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ied upon by Shri Kunhikrishnan. Although that order explains the position clearly, we are doing so once again for the sake of completeness. The relevant provision is Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, which is reproduced below :- "3.(1) Any article which is imported into India shall, in addition, be liable to a duty (hereafter in this section referred to as the additional duty) equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India and if such excise duty on a like article is leviable at any percentage of its value, the additional duty to which the imported article shall be so liable shall be calculated at that percentage of the value of the imported article. Explanation- In this Section, the expression "the excise duty for the time being leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India" means the excise duty for the time being in force which would be leviable on a like article if produced or manufactured in India, or, if a like article is not so produced or manufactured, which would be leviable on the class or description of articles to which the imported article belongs, and where suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... makes any article imported into India liable to an additional duty. The second provision, which regulates the quantum of this duty, related to a like article, makes it clear that the countervailing duty is leviable whether or not a like article is being produced or manufactured in India : it also provides guidance as to how the additional duty is to be calculated in a case where a like article is not being produced or manufactured in India. The differentiation as between the articles which are being produced or manufactured in India and articles which are not being so produced or manufactured, is only in regard to the method of calculating the quantum of duty leviable, and not in regard to the liability for the additional duty which attaches to "any article which is imported into India". If the quantum of duty leviable on the like indigenous article happens to be nil, the quantum of duty leviable on the imported article would also be nil. However, an imported article would not be relieved from the liability to countervailing duty merely because a like article is not being produced or manufactured in India. 17. The remaining argument of Shri Ignatius was with reference to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
