TMI Blog1986 (4) TMI 66X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the date of the arrival of the goods at Calcutta till its release. 2. The petitioners carrying on business as manufacturers of steel tubes and importers of raw materials for such use. The petitioners have been issued requisite industrial licence by the Customs Authorities for manufacture of steel pipes under the provisions of the Industries (Development Regulation) Act, 1951. The Controller of Import Export issued import licence dated 25th February, 1980 and revalidated upto 31st of May, 1981 by endorsement in the licence, thus authorising the petitioner to import goods described therein as "Seconds/Secondary G.R.S.S. Sheets in continuous coils of specification A.I.S.I. 304, 304L, 316 and 316L "for 200 mt. tonnes of appropriate C.I. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mported through Mineral Metal Corporation of India. Therefore importation of such goods was prohibited in terms of Section 11 of the Customs Act read with import trade control order. The goods being of prima quality its C.I.F. value was taken by the Customs at U.S. Dollar 1978 per mt. tonnes. Hence the petitioners were guilty of making mis-description of the goods as a result the said goods are liable to be confiscated under Section 111 Sub-section (m) of the Customs Act. Hence, the respondents have issued a show cause notice as to why the said goods should not be confiscated and the penalty imposed. The petitioner sent their reply to such show cause notice on 27th August, 1981. Under the licence the petitioner can import secondary steel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Inspection Report. The petitioners further contended that the difference between the prima and secondary quality as understood by the people in ordinary commerce conversant with the articles, should be adhered to. Hence under the Customs Tariff Act and/or the Notification should be read, interpreted and applied as they are understood by the people in the trade. Hence, the Sub-heading 2 of Heading 73.15 of the. Customs Act relate to Prima Quality Stainless Steel and nothing else. Hence defective/secondary/quality stainless steel would be outside the Heading 73.15 Sub-section (2) and would be drawn within the ambit of residuary Sub-heading (1). The petitioners contended that the question involved for determination is whether defec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the secondary type as contemplated and/or provided in the petitioner's licence the importation of the said goods by the petitioner was in accordance with the law. 3. The petitioners instead of preferring an appeal and availing of the alternative remedy as provided in the Customs Act itself had chosen to move the writ jurisdiction of this Court. There had been no challenge of any assessment of duty on the question of any law. The construction given by the Customs Authority in respect of an entry in favour of the revenue merely on the allegations that some other construction can be given which may appeal more to Court cannot be a ground for interference under the writ jurisdiction. Until and unless the Court came to the conclusion that su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ported only prima quality stainless steel. Hence, deliberation over the fine distinction is of no consequence. Under Item No. 73.15(2) irrespective of prima or secondary/defective quality the same rate of duty has been prescribed. Hence the Customs Tariff Act being the statutory provision will take precedents over the import policy statements. Assessments will have to be made either in the Sub-heading No. 73.15(1) or 74.15(2). Prima Quality Stainless Steel are canalysed and are to be imported through Mineral Metal Trading Corporation. Hence importation of the said goods becomes prohibited in terms of Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Import Control Order 1955 as amended from time to time and liability to be confiscated under S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al right and no writ petition under Article 32 was maintainable. It was possible reasonably, to uphold the construction adopted by an inferior tribunal and therefore it would be a case of mere error of law and not a patent error, or an error apparent on the face of the record which should justify the issue of a writ of certiorari ...... Jurisdiction means authority to decide. Whenever a judicial or quasi judicial tribunal is empowered or required to enquire into a question of law or fact for the purpose of giving a decision on it, its findings thereon cannot be impeached collaterally or on an application for certiorari but are binding until reversed on appeal. Where a quasi judicial authority has jurisdiction to decide a matter, it does ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
