2015 (8) TMI 579 - SC - Customs

Supreme Court affirms High Court's decision on concessional custom duty eligibility under Notification No. 114/80-CUS.

D.R. Enterprises Ltd. Versus Assistant Collector of Customs And Others

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision in dismissing the appeal regarding eligibility for concessional custom duty under Notification No. ... Import of Printing Machine at concessional rate – High Court refused to allow import of Web Printing Machine on concessional rate of custom duty – However Interim relief sought for release of machinery was allowed but petition was kept pending – Whether High Court was competent to decide matter – Held that:- interim prayer for release of machinery was allowed by High Court – No doubt, when High Court passed interim order in favour of appellant, High Court could have dispose of petition – It was at instance of appellant that issue was taken up for hearing. After inviting High Court to decide matter on merits and finding that decision has gone against appellant, contrary argument was nothing but desperate attempt to come out of situation which was appellant's own creation –Order of High Court clearly records that appellant had requested High Court to decide issue on basis of material on record. Ultimate conclusion drawn by High Court in regards to entitlement of appellant to claim exemption under Notification No. 114/80-CUS in this behalf was correct and plausible – Burden of proof was on appellant to establish that machine imported by it generates more than 35,000 composite impressions or copies per hour which appellant failed to do so – Appeal dismissed – Decided against Assesse. Issues Involved:1. Eligibility for concessional custom duty under Notification No. 114/80-CUS.2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to adjudicate the matter.3. Limitation period for adjudication under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Merits of the case regarding the printing capacity of the imported machine.Detailed Analysis:1. Eligibility for Concessional Custom Duty:The appellant sought to import a Web Printing Machine at a concessional custom duty rate under Notification No. 114/80-CUS, which required the machine to produce 30,000 or more copies per hour. The appellant claimed the machine had a capacity of 36,000 copies per hour, but the High Court found it to be 25,000 copies per hour based on the manufacturer's leaflet submitted with the Bill of Entry.2. Jurisdiction of the High Court:The appellant argued that the High Court was not competent to decide the matter as the Customs Act provides a complete adjudication mechanism. The High Court, however, proceeded to decide the issue on merits as the appellant itself had requested the court to do so. The Supreme Court upheld this approach, noting that the High Court has wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and can decide on such matters if invited by the petitioner.3. Limitation Period for Adjudication:The appellant contended that the issue had become time-barred as no show cause notice was issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act during the pendency of the writ petition. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that the limitation period was not applicable since the High Court was requested to decide the issue on merits, and no adjudication proceedings were initiated by the customs authorities during this period.4. Merits of the Case:The High Court examined the evidence, including leaflets, certificates, and inspection reports, and concluded that the machine's capacity was 25,000 copies per hour. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding, noting that the appellant failed to prove that the machine met the required capacity for concessional duty. The High Court gave detailed reasons for rejecting the appellant's evidence, including inconsistencies in the manufacturer's certificates and the inspection report showing the machine's folder base model as JF-25-B, not the upgraded version claimed by the appellant.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court's findings on both jurisdiction and merits. The appellant was unable to establish that the imported machine met the criteria for concessional custom duty, and the High Court was competent to decide the issue given the appellant's request for a decision on merits. The argument of the matter being time-barred was also rejected.