1982 (9) TMI 59 - HC - Customs

Court Upholds Duty Rate for Stainless Steel Circles, Includes Landing Charges in Assessable Value

SUPER TRADERS AND ANOTHER Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

SUPER TRADERS AND ANOTHER Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS - 1983 (12) E.L.T. 258 (Del.) Issues Involved:1. Classification of imported stainless steel circles under Customs Tariff Act.2. Applicability of Heading 73.15(2) to prime and defective/secondary stainless steel circles.3. Constitutionality of the Amendment Act 15 of 1982.4. Inclusion of landing charges in the assessable value for customs duty.5. Availability of alternative remedies under the Customs Act.6. Issuance of interim orders staying the recovery of customs duty.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Imported Stainless Steel Circles:The petitioners argued that their imported defective/secondary grade stainless steel circles should be classified under Heading 73.15(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, attracting a lower duty rate of 60% (effective 35% due to an exemption notification). The Customs Authorities, however, classified these goods under Heading 73.15(2), which imposes a higher duty rate of 300% (effective 220% due to an exemption notification). The Court agreed with the Customs Authorities, interpreting that stainless steel circles fall under the definition of 'sheets' in Heading 73.15(2), supported by international trade definitions and previous judicial interpretations.2. Applicability of Heading 73.15(2) to Prime and Defective/Secondary Stainless Steel Circles:The petitioners contended that Heading 73.15(2) should apply only to prime quality goods, not defective or secondary quality. The Court rejected this argument, noting that the Customs Tariff Act does not distinguish between prime and defective items for duty assessment purposes. The rate of duty under 73.15(2) is ad valorem and applies uniformly to all alloy steel and high carbon steel, regardless of quality. The Court emphasized that the duty payable varies with the value of the goods, not their quality.3. Constitutionality of the Amendment Act 15 of 1982:The petitioners challenged the retrospective application of the Amendment Act, which explicitly included stainless steel circles under Heading 73.15(2) from January 1, 1981. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Amendment Act, citing established legal principles that allow the legislature to enact laws with retrospective effect. The Court found the retrospective date reasonable, as it addressed the period when disputes about the classification of stainless steel circles arose, preventing revenue loss.4. Inclusion of Landing Charges in the Assessable Value:The petitioners argued against including landing charges in the assessable value for customs duty, claiming that importation is complete when goods enter Indian territorial waters. The Court rejected this argument, holding that the value for assessment must include landing charges, as the goods are not part of the mass of goods in India until they are offloaded and brought to the port. The Court supported this view by referring to previous judicial interpretations and practical considerations.5. Availability of Alternative Remedies:The Court noted that the petitioners had not exhausted the alternative remedies available under the Customs Act, such as appeals and revisions. While the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the Court's jurisdiction, it is a sound exercise of discretion to require litigants to pursue statutory remedies first. The Court emphasized that matters involving valuation and classification of goods require expertise and detailed examination, best handled by the authorities under the Act.6. Issuance of Interim Orders:The Court expressed caution in issuing interim orders staying the recovery of customs duty, noting that such orders can defer substantial revenue collection and necessitate legislative amendments. The Court advised that interim orders should only be granted in clear cases of transgression of law or total excess of jurisdiction by the authorities. The Court highlighted the need for judicial restraint to avoid unnecessary disruption of revenue collection and legislative processes.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the classification of stainless steel circles under Heading 73.15(2), the applicability of the heading to both prime and defective/secondary quality goods, the constitutionality of the Amendment Act 15 of 1982, and the inclusion of landing charges in the assessable value. The Court also emphasized the importance of exhausting alternative remedies and exercising judicial restraint in issuing interim orders. The petitioners were directed to pay the costs and the interim orders were vacated.