M/S. SNEH ENTERPRISES versus COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 817 · Decided: 08-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.... '\ 
-~ 
M/S. SNEH ENTERPRISES 
A 
V. 
COMMNR. OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI 
SEPTEMBER 8, 2006 
[S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
B 
Customs Tariff Act, 1975-Section 9A-Anti-dumping duty. 
Import of goods for imposition of-When complete-Held-It depends 
on contract between parties and/or statute-It is not common law that it C 
would be deemed to be complete only when goods pass customs barrier-In 
absence of statutory interdict common law principle applies and the import 
is complete when goods enter territories of a country-On facts, held, though 
goods landed in Mumbai and Bill of Entry was filed subsequently in Delhi 
after transshipment there, taxable event of their import for purposes of 
imposition of Anti-Dumping duty occurred in Mumbai. 
D 
Applicability of provisions of Customs Act, 1962-Section 9A(8) of Act 
of 1975 introduced by Finance Act, 2004-Making applicable to Act of 1975 
provisions of Act of 1962 relating to date of determination of duty etc.-Effect 
of-Held-As Section 9A(8) was enacted to achieve a specific purpose, its 
operation was limited from the date it came into force, and it could not be E 
applied with retrospective effect-Further, as it was enacted to suppress a 
mischief, Section I 5 of Act of I 962, prescribing date for determination of rate 
of duty, could not apply in Section 9A of Act of 1975 prior to 2004-Also, 
it was not a case of incorporation of provisions of law by reference. 
On lead acid batteries originating from Taiwan-Notification dated F 
22.5.2002-Effect of-Held, on its face value, the notification was prospective 
in operation. 
Interpretation of statutes-Taxing provision-Held-Principle of strict 
interpretation should be applied-Court shall not make interpretation in 
such a manner as would create an additional fiscal burden on a person-
/I would never be done by invoking provisions of another statute which are G 
not attracted-Also, while two interpretations are possible, Court should 
ordinarily interpret the provisions in favour of a tax-payer and against 
Revenue. 
817 
H 
818 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Interpretation of statutes-Situation contemplated under one statute-
E.ffect of while applying provision of another statute-Held, this cannot be 
done in absence of any express or clear intendment. 
Interpretation of statutes-Incorporation of provisions of law by 
reference-Held while doing so, it is obligatory for Parliament/legislature to 
B say so. 
c 
Appellant imported batteries from Taiwan. Though the import took place 
at Mumbai on 16.4.2002, batteries were transshipped to Delhi and the Bill of 
Entry was filed there on 22.5.2002. However, on that day, the Central 
Government exercising its powers under Section 9A of the Customs Tariff 
Act, 1975, issued a notification imposing anti-dumping duties on batteries 
originating in or exported from Taiwan. The respondents, relying on that 
notification, directed the appellant to pay the anti-dumping duty. Appellant 
contended that the said notification was not retrospective and the taxable event 
occurred on 16.4.2002 when no anti-dumping duty was in force. Respondent 
D rejected these contentions of appellant. Hence the present appeal. 
'1 
Appellant contended that the provisions of Section 15 of the Customs 
• 
Act, 1962, prescribing the date for determination of rate of duty on imported 
goods, could not be invoked for imposition of anti-dumping duty in view of the 
fact that Section 9A(8) in Act of 1975, making applicable provisions of the 
E Customs Act, 1962 relating to the date for determination of rate of duty etc. 
to anti-dumping duty, was introduced in the year 2004 by Finance (No. 2) Act, 
2004. 
F 
Respondent contended that the tal<:able event was the day when the goods 
crossed the customs barrier and not on the day when the goods landed in India 
or entered its territorial waters. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The question as to when import of goods is complete would 
depend upon contract between the parties andior statute governing the field. 
G It is not a part of common law that the import of the goods would be deemed to 
have been completed only when it passes the customs barrier. Such a provision 
has been made for achieving definite purposes i.e., for the purpose of 
calculating customs duty. 1826-E, FJ 
H 
1.2. Unless there exists a statutory interdict, common law principle would 
.,., 
-"-' 
SNEH ENTERPRISES v. COMMNR OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI 
819 
apply

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.