Court dismisses most writ petitions, remands one for fresh examination; Department to re-examine, petitioner to present contentions.

The court dismissed the writ petitions, except for one, which was remanded for fresh examination due to material factual differences. The Department was directed to re-examine the case, allowing the petitioner to present their contentions. Each party was to bear their respective costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Levy of import duty on viscose staple fibre.
2. Interpretation of 'import' under the Customs Act.
3. Applicability of exemption notifications.
4. Determination of the point of importation.
5. Legal principles regarding customs duties and importation.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Levy of Import Duty on Viscose Staple Fibre:
The petitioners, textile mill owners, imported viscose staple fibre, which was subject to import duty under various fiscal measures, including the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and the Finance Act of 1976. The importation was initially exempted from duty by Government notifications, but a time lag occurred before the exemption was extended, leading to the imposition of duties on the petitioners' goods.

2. Interpretation of 'Import' under the Customs Act:
The central issue was whether the importation was complete when the vessel entered the territorial waters of India or when it berthed at the intended port of destination. Section 2(23) of the Customs Act defines 'import' as "bringing into India from a place outside India," and Section 2(27) includes "territorial waters of India" in the definition of India. The court examined whether the act of importation was complete when the vessel entered the territorial waters around Bombay or when it reached Cochin, the intended port of importation.

3. Applicability of Exemption Notifications:
The Government of India had issued notifications exempting viscose staple fibre from customs duty, effective until 31-12-1978, with a subsequent extension from 5-1-1979. The vessel carrying the goods reached Cochin after 31-12-1978 but before 5-1-1979, creating a gap during which the exemption was not in effect. The petitioners argued that the entry of the vessel into the territorial waters of Bombay on 28-12-1978 should entitle them to the exemption.

4. Determination of the Point of Importation:
The court considered various judicial decisions and statutory provisions to determine the point of importation. It concluded that importation is not complete merely by entering territorial waters or an intermediate port. The intention of the importer and the port of destination are crucial. The court held that the mere entry of the vessel into the territorial waters or berthing at Bombay did not constitute a completed importation for the petitioners, whose intended port of importation was Cochin.

5. Legal Principles Regarding Customs Duties and Importation:
The court referred to several legal principles and judicial decisions to elucidate the nature of customs duties and importation. It emphasized that the taxable event for customs duty is the import of goods within the customs barriers. The court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Empress Mills v. Municipal Committee, Wardha, which highlighted the inconvenience and confusion that would result from a literal interpretation of 'import' and 'export.' The court also referred to decisions from the Australian High Court and other jurisdictions to support its conclusion that importation is complete when the goods reach the intended port of discharge.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, except for O.P. No. 928 of 1979, which was remanded for fresh examination due to material factual differences. The court directed the Department to re-examine the case, giving the petitioner an effective opportunity to present their contentions. The parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

---