LexHIND PLASTICS AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY AND ANR. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B HIND PLASTICS AND ANR. ETC. ETC. v. THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, BOMBAY AND ANR. ETC. ETC. APRIL 13, 1994 [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] Constitution of India : Articles 32 and 226-Notification issued under rule 8 of Central Excise Rule>; 1962-Writ petitions under Article 226 chal- C lenging Notification dismissed-Writ Petitions under Article 32 by some other importers-Held writ under Article 32 not maintainable-Petitioner cannot be said to be seeking enforcement of any of their fundamental rights-A view contrary to that of petitioners taken by High Court cannot be a ground for skipping that Court. D Customs Act, 1962/Central Excise Rules 1962: Sections 2(41), 314(1), 25/rule 8-Notification No. 184---<:US dated 2.8.197&-lmport of P.V.C. in packages-Exemption from levy/additional duty in respect of packages sought-Held Notification does not contemplate deduction of value of pack- ages from out of invoice value and exempt them from duty/additional duty- E Notification is designed to exempt levy of duty/additional duty separately since in law there is an import of packages and such import too is subject to I. T. C. restrictions. Interpretation of statutes : Instrument, statutory or otherwise--lnter- pretation of-Intention of maker and significance of actual words used-Ex- F plained. Words and phrases: Expression 'Value' as occuning in sections 2(41) and 14( 1) of Customs Act-Meaning of-Explained. The Central Government, in exercise of its powers under section 25 G of the Customs Act, 1962, issued Notification No. 184- CUS dated 2.8.1976, to the effect that ooere any goods were imported into India in 'packages or containers or the like', such packages etc. would he exempt from the whole of the customs duty as well as the additional duty provided that (a) the value of the packages in which the goods were packed was included in H the invoice value of the imported goods; (h) the packages were not of a 508 ' ' .. .. HIND PLASTICS v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS 509 permanent character and not strong enough to be suitable for repeated A use; and(c) the packages were such as were normally used in the trade for packing such goods. The appellant-firm imported P.V.C. and paid custom duty and additional duty thereon, In 1983 the firm filed a writ petition in the High Court claiming refund of customs duty/additional duty in respect of packages in which the PVC had been imported, alleged to have been paid by it unaware of Notifications No. 184. It also prayed for a direction to the Revenue not to levy customs duty/additional duty on the item any further. Several other writ petitions involving similar controversy were also filed, and the matters were ultimately referred to a Division Bench of the High Court. The appellants contended that all the conditions prescribed in the Notification were satisfied inasmuch as the invoice value included the v~lue of packages, the packages were neither of permanent character nor strong enough to be suitable for repeated use, B c and were also such as were normally used in the trade for packing P.V.C. D The Revenue, on the other hand, contended that the Notification did not contemplate or permit deduction of any portion of the invoice value of the imported goods; it merely saved the packages from a separate levy if they satisfied the requirements prescribed; that the claim of the appellant could not be examined as the goods had been cleared long E before and the packages were not available to determine whether they satisfied the requirements of the notifications. The High Court upholding the interpretation of the Notification as given by the Revenue, dismissed the writ petitions. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the appeal by special leave. Some other importers also filed the writ petitions under Article F 32 of the Constitution. Dismissing the appeal and the Writ Petitions, this Court HELD : 1.1. The High Court has rightly held that Notification No. 184 does not contemplate or provide - either expressly or by necessary G intendment - for the value of the packages being deducted from out of the invoice value and exempting them from duly/additional duty; there are no such words in the Notification; if that were really the intention, it would have said so expressly~ more particularly when such an interpretation has the effect of modifying the value of imported goods determined under and H 510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994]
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.