9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 73X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .V.C. which may be imported by it thereafter. It appears, a large number of writ petitions raising similar contentions were filed in the Bombay High Court, all of which have been heard and dismissed by a Division Bench. The Division Bench held that the Notification does not provide for deduction of the value of packages from the invoice value of imported P.V.C. and that the Notification merely saves the duty/additional duty leviable separately on the said packages, which too are deemed in law to have been imported. The correctness of the said view is questioned in this appeal. 2.Notification No. 184 dated 2-8-1976 has been issued by the Central Government under Section 25 of the Customs Act. It is necessary to read the Notification in full : "184/76-Cus. dated 2-8-1976 G.S.R. 553(E) - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby directs that where any goods are imported into or exported from India, in packages or containers or the like, such packages or containers or the like shall be exempt - from the whole of the d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... packages shall be exempt from the whole of the customs duty as well as the additional duty; provided (a) the value of the packages in which the goods are packed is included in the invoice value of the imported goods; (b) the packages are not of a permanent character and not strong enough to be suitable for repeated use; (c) the packages are such as are normally used in the trade for packing such goods. It is evident that all the aforesaid three conditions mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proviso have to be satisfied to avail of the benefit of exemption provided by the Notification. 5.Now in the case of imports made by the appellant the value of packages was included in the invoice value of the P.V.C. imported. The invoice did not separately mention the value of the P.V.C. and the value of the packages. The authorities levied customs duty and additional duty on the total invoice value at the rate applicable to P.V.C. 6.On the above facts, the appellant's case is this : the invoice value includes the value of packages; the packages are not of a permanent character and are not strong enough to be suitable for repeated use; the packages are also such as are normally used ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfied all the three requirements prescribed in the Notification dated 10-6-1972. The learned Judge reiterated the said view in two other subsequent writ petitions being W.P. 1641 of 1982 disposed of on 10-10-1983 (Finolex Pipes Private Limited v. Union of India) [1990 (47) E.L.T. 316 (Bom.)] and W.P. No. 2053 of 1982 disposed of on 16-4-1984 (Milton Plastics v. Collector of Customs, Bombay). The present batch of writ petitions (including the writ petition filed by the appellants herein), however, came up before another learned Judge Smt. Sujata V. Manohar, J. The learned Judge disagreed with the view taken and the interpretation placed by Pendse, J. in the aforesaid decisions and referred the matter to a Division Bench. The Division Bench agreed with the view expressed by Smt. Sujata Manohar, J. and dismissed the writ petitions. 8.We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. While Mr. Adhyaru, learned counsel for the appellant, commended the view taken by Pendse, J., Shri Vellapali, learned counsel for the Revenue, commended for our acceptance the view taken by the Division Bench and Smt. Sujata Manohar, J. - which is indeed the stand taken by the Revenue in its co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the sale/offer for sale; and (b) where the price cannot be ascertained under clause (a), the nearest ascertainable equivalent thereof determined in accordance with the rules made in that behalf. Sub-section (2) empowers the Central Government to notify, if it is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do, the tariff values for any class of imported goods having regard to relevant circumstances. In such a case the duty has to be changed with reference to such tariff value. This power under sub-section (2) is de hors the provision in sub-section (1). Sub-section (4) of Section 46 requires that the importer while presenting a Bill of Entry shall also produce the invoice, if any, relating to the imported goods before the proper officer in proof of the truth of the contents of Bill of Entry. Section 25 empowers the Central Government to "exempt generally, either absolutely or subject to such conditions (to be fulfilled before or after clearance), as may be specified in the Notification, goods of any specified description from the whole or any part of duty of customs leviable thereon", if it is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do. The nature and sc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proviso otiose and superfluous, since it would merely be stating the obvious. That the value of packages would be included in the invoice value is an obvious fact, whether it is separately shown or not. If so, why was it made a condition - the first condition - to be satisfied for availing the benefit of exemption. It may be recalled that this condition was not there in the first Notification dated 25-11-1967. It was introduced for the first time in the Notification dated 10-6-1972 and reiterated in Notification No. 184 issued in the year 1976. The said fact militates against an interpretation which renders it superfluous and of no significance. It cannot be presumed that the Central Government introduced the said clause without any meaning, significance or purpose. The invoice value of all imported goods which are imported in packages, necessarily includes the value of packages whether it is shown separately as such or not. This is an incontrovertible and universal fact. If so, the question arises, what does the said clause mean and what does it signify ? The answer according to the Revenue is this : when Section 14(1) speaks of "the price at which such or like goods are ordinaril ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us take another situation to test the correctness of the Revenue's theory, says the assessee: take a case where P.V.C. is imported in steel containers, permanent in character and suitable for repeated use. In such a case, duty/additional duty will first be charged on the invoice value of the P.V.C. (which includes the value of the steel containers) at the rate applicable to P.V.C. and again another levy of duty/additional duty on the value of steel containers at the rate applicable to steel containers, inasmuch the containers do not satisfy clauses (b) and (c) of the proviso in the Notification. This could never have been contemplated by law, says the assessees' counsel. Of course, the counsel for the Revenue says that there is nothing abhorrent or unusual in the above situation and that it is as it ought to be. The learned counsel refers to the case of oil being imported in stainless steel containers, where the value of the containers is several times the value of the oil contained therein. Such a situation can be met only if the Revenue's interpretation is accepted, says the learned counsel for the Revenue. 16.After giving anxious consideration to the rival points of view, we ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it goes against the decision herein. 18.In this connection, it is well to remind ourselves that every instrument, statutory or otherwise, has to be so interpreted as to accord with the intention of its maker having regard to the language used. True, one cannot ignore the actual words used and go after the supposed intention of the maker - as pointed out in Hemraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Surat and Others [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 350) (SC) = 1969 (2) S.C.R. 253] - since that would amount to entering the arena of speculation but all the same the principle is unexceptionable that whether it is statute, statutory instrument or an ordinary instrument, the interpretation placed has to accord with the intention of the maker as evidenced by the words/language used. The decision in Hemraj Gordhandas does not lay down any contrary proposition. 19.We are, therefore, of the opinion that the interpretation placed by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on Notification No. 184 is the correct one and warrants no interference at our hands. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 20.In Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 227/88, 312/88, 229/88, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
