Joint venture manufacture cannot justify duty demand against one constituent alone; liability must attach to the venture as manufacturer.

Duty demand for goods manufactured in a joint venture cannot be fastened on one constituent alone when the record shows the venture itself undertook manufacture; liability, if any, must attach to the joint venture as the distinct manufacturer. On that basis, the demand and penalty against the appellant were unsustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether duty demand and penalty could be confirmed against one constituent of a joint venture when the goods were manufactured by the joint venture itself.

Analysis: The demand was confirmed against the appellant merely on the basis that it had undertaken manufacture of pre-cast cement blocks. The factual record showed that the construction contract had been jointly accepted by the appellant and another company, and the cement blocks in dispute were manufactured in the course of that joint venture activity. Where manufacture is undertaken by a joint venture, the liability, if any, must attach to the joint venture as the manufacturer and not to one constituent alone, because the joint venture is treated as a separate juristic entity for the purpose of such demand.

Conclusion: The duty demand and penalty against the appellant were unsustainable and were set aside.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded on the ground that the demand could not be fastened on a single participant in a joint venture that manufactured the goods.

Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand in respect of goods manufactured by a joint venture cannot be raised against one constituent of the joint venture alone, as the liability must be fastened on the joint venture as the distinct manufacturer.

---