LexM/S. GAURAV DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD. versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B M/S. GAURAV DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI AUGUST 11, 2004 [S.N. VARIAVA AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] Customs Act, 1962-Section 20, Proviso-Reimportation of goods exported in bond-Levy of customs duty thereon-Exemption under Pro- viso to the Section sought-Denied by Courts below-Plea that levy of duty C not justified as expression "goods exported in bond" would not cover the goods exported under excise bond as the same refers only to goods exported under customs bond-On appeal, held: Duty rightly levied-The words included the goods exported on excise bond as well as customs bond-In the absence of any restrictive words, the expression must be given D its full meaning. Interpretation of Statutes-If the statute is clear and unambiguous then effect must be given to its words. The goods in question were exported under bonds, and were E subsequently purchased by the appellants and re-imported in India in March, 1995. Assistant Commissioner held that as the goods had been exported in bonds, appellants were liable to pay the customs duty at the same rate to which. the goods of the like kind and value would be subject. Appellants claimed benefit of the Proviso to Section 20 of F Customs Act, 1962. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, upheld the decision levying the duty holding that the appellants were not covered by Proviso to Section 20. In appeal to this Court, appellant contended that the expression "goods exported in bond" must be re~tricted to mean goods exported G under customs bond and not excise bond. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. It cannot be said that Section 20 of Customs Act, 1962, H as it stood at the time the goods were re-imported only referred to 454 - - GA URA V DISTRIBUTORS (P) LTD. v. COMMR. OF CUSTOMS 455 "goods exported under a customs bond". Sub-clauses (c)(ii) and (c)(iii) A of Proviso to Section 20 indicate that the goods which were exported in bond were locally manufactured, with or without use of the indigenous material. On export of local goods, no customs duty is payable. Thus, at the time of export there would be no customs bond in respect of such goods. Locally manufactured goods would be B exported only on an excise bond. Thus, the words "goods exported in bond" in Section 20, as it then stood, clearly included goods exported on an excise bond. If the statute is clear and unambiguous then effect must be given to its words. In the present case as the vires of Section 20 does not arise and the wordings of the Section is clear, the Court is bound to interpret it as it stands. [460-D-G) C 2.1. The intention of Legislature was to include goods exported under a customs bond or an excise bond. If the Legislature wanted to restrict these words only to goods exported under a customs bond they would have had to say so specifically. In the absence of any restrictive words the expression must be given its full meaning and must include D goods exported either under a customs bond or an excise bond. [461-B-C) 2.2. Section 20 under consideration came into effect in June 1994 and operated upto 26th May, 1995. The earlier Secticn clearly included E goods exported under an excise bond. When the Legislature was changing the Section, if they wanted to depart from the earlier position they would have had to do so in express words. With effect from 26th May, 1995, Section 20 was again changed. The proviso to Section 20 was omitted. However, by a Notification it was inter alia clarified that if goods were "exported in bond" without payment of central excise duty, the amount F of the central excise duty, which had not been paid, would have to be paid. As prior and subsequent to Section 20 under coosideration the position was that goods exported even under an excise bond were covered, it is not possible to accept the submission that during the relevant period the Legislature had made a departure. (461-D-G) G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8683 of 2001. From the Judgment and Order dated 24.8.200 I of the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A. No. C/235/2001- H 456 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A B in F.O. No. 422 of 2001-B. B A.K. Ganguli, Vinay Garg and Ms. Deepam Garg for the Appellant. Anoop Chaudhry, Sanjay Grover, P. Parmeshwaran, Rohit Singh and B. Krishna Prasad for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was del
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.