Tariff value notification under Customs law cannot govern an earlier import when Supreme Court precedent is binding.

Section 14(2) of the Customs Act permits tariff value to be fixed by notification in the Official Gazette, but the notification could not be applied to goods imported on 03.08.2001 because the Supreme Court had already held, on the same notification, that it did not govern an earlier import. Customs duty was therefore payable only on the invoice value for that import. The High Court was also bound by Article 141 and could not disregard the Supreme Court's ruling or adopt a contrary view; judicial discipline required adherence to the binding declaration of law. The writ petitions succeeded, and the duty assessment based on the notification was held unlawful.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Notification No. 36/2001 fixing tariff value under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be applied to goods imported on 03.08.2001, and (ii) whether the High Court could disregard the Supreme Court's ruling on the same notification and adopt a contrary view.

Issue (i): whether Notification No. 36/2001 fixing tariff value under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 could be applied to goods imported on 03.08.2001.

Analysis: Section 14(2) empowers the Board to fix tariff value by notification in the Official Gazette, and where such tariff value is fixed, duty is chargeable with reference to that value. The imported goods had been entered on 03.08.2001, but the Supreme Court had already held, on the same notification, that it did not take effect in a manner that would govern goods cleared earlier in the day. In the present case, the Court held that the respondents could not levy duty on the later-notified tariff value for an earlier import.

Conclusion: The notification could not be applied to the goods imported on 03.08.2001, and customs duty was payable only on the invoice value; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the High Court could disregard the Supreme Court's ruling on the same notification and adopt a contrary view.

Analysis: The Court applied Article 141 of the Constitution of India and held that the law declared by the Supreme Court is binding on all courts. Once the Supreme Court had ruled on the very same notification, the High Court could not treat that decision as inapplicable or sit in judgment over it, even if an earlier line of reasoning from other decisions suggested a different result. Judicial discipline required obedience to the Supreme Court's declaration of law.

Conclusion: The High Court was bound by the Supreme Court's decision and could not take a contrary view; this issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded because the tariff value fixed by Notification No. 36/2001 could not be applied to the earlier import, and the respondents' action in assessing duty on that basis was held unlawful.

Ratio Decidendi: A tariff-value notification cannot be applied to an earlier import where the controlling Supreme Court ruling on the same notification is binding under Article 141, and a High Court must follow that declaration of law with judicial discipline.

---