NORTHERN CORPORATION versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1990] 3 S.C.R. 621 · Decided: 06-08-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SABYASACHI MUKHERJI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

NORTHERN CORPORATION 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
AUGUST 6, 1990 
[SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, CJ. AND K.N. SAIKIA, JJ.] 
B 
Customs Act, 1962: Section 15( l)(b)-Customs duty-Deter-
mination of rate-Goods imported could not be cleared due to ban 
-!~~imposed by income tax authorities-Whether importer liable to pay at 
the enhanced rate prevailing at the time of clearance. 
~ 
-) 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 32-Scope of-Excise duty--
Liability to pay particular duty-Dependant on interpretation of law 
and determination of facts-Enforcement of provisions of the Act-
Whether a breach of fundamental right-Whether permissible to move 
the Court without seeking relief within the procedure prescribed by the 
Act. 
The petitioner-Corportion imported certain goods. The goods 
were bounded, and could not be got released due to the ban imposed by 
the Income Tax authorities, under Section 132(1) of the Income Tax 
Act, 1961. Subsequently after the ban was lifted, the petitioner 
approached the authorities for clearance of the goods, but the customs 
authorities demanded payment of customs duty at the enhanced rate 
which was prevailing at the time of clearance. Hence the petitioner filed 
a Writ Petition before this. Court challenging the demand as arbitrary, 
illegal and unconstitutional. 
It was contended that though the petitioner was,willing to clear 
the goods on payment of the then prevailing custom duty, the goods 
could not be cleared due to circumstances beyond its control, by the 
order of the Income Tax authorities and, therefore, the authorities 
could not claim enhanced duty. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that in view of Section 
G 
IS(I)(b) of the Customs Act, especially the expression "actually 
removed" used therein, the liability of the petitioner to pay the duty 
was the duty at the time of clearance of the goods. 
- --..., 
Disposing of the Writ Petition, this Court, 
H 
621 
A 
B 
c 
622 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] 3 S.C.R. 
HELD: J. Section 15(l)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 clearty 
requires that the rate of duty, rate of exchange and tariff applicable to ..!.,._-
any imported goods shall be the rate and valuation in force on the date 
on which goods are actually removed from the warehouse. Therefore, in 
view of the language used in Section 15(l)(b) of the Act, specially in the 
light of the expression 'actually removed' the petitioner was liable to 
pay excise duty at enhanced rate prevailing on the date the goods were 
cleared. The prohibitory orders, arbitrary or not, would postpone the 
date of clearance, and as such would postpone the determination of the- __ 
duty. [626F; 627C] 
~ 
Prakash Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. B. Sen & Ors., [1979] 2 SCR 
1142, relied on. 
2.1 Recourse to Art. 32 of the Constitution can be had if there is a 
breach of the fundamental rights, provided the other conditions are 
satisfied. But in a matter where liability of a citizen to pay a particular 
duty depends on interpretation of law and determination of facts and 
D the provision of a particular statute, for which elaborate procedure is 
prescribed, enforcing of those provisions of the Act would not breaclt 
fundamental right and, without taking any resort to the provisions of 
the Act, it is not permissible to move this Court on the theoretical basis 
that there is breach of fundamental right. Whenever a person comp-
lains and claims that there is a violation of law, it does not involve 
E 
breach of fundamental right for the enforcement of which alone Art. 32 
of the Constitution is attractrd. [627E; 628A-D] 
F 
G 
H 
Smt. Ujjam Bai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1963] I SCR 778, 
relied on. 
2 .2 In a particular situation whether customs duty is payable at 
the rate prevalent on a particular date or not has to be determined 
under the four corners of the Customs Act, 1962. [627FJ 
In the instant case, the petitioner has no fundamental right as 
such to clear any goods import•d without payment of duties in accor-
dance with the law. There is procedure provided by law for determina-
tion of the payment of customs duty. The revenue.has proceeded on that 
basis. The petitioner cannot seek to remove the goods without payment 
at that rate or without having the matter determined by the procedure 
envisaged and enjoined by the law for that determination. The 
petitioner, without seeking to take any relief within the procedure 
envisaged under the Act, had moved this Court for breach of funds-

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