Countervailing duty valuation upheld: customs duty may be added, exemption conditions are strictly construed, and constitutional challenge failed.

Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act was treated as requiring countervailing duty to be computed on the aggregate of the Section 14 Customs value and the customs duty payable, so basic customs duty could be added to the assessable value. The exemption under Notification No. 302/79 was denied because exemption conditions had to be satisfied strictly and the importer could not fulfil the requirement that the relevant raw material had already borne the prescribed excise duty. Landing charges were also held includible in the value for customs duty, as pre-clearance expenses formed part of the imported goods' value. The constitutional challenge under Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 failed because imported and indigenous goods were not comparable classes and the valuation method was valid.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, for computing countervailing duty under Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the assessable value could be taken as the CIF value plus basic customs duty; (ii) Whether the imported goods were entitled to the concessional rate under Notification No. 302/79 dated 04.12.1979; (iii) Whether landing charges were includible in the CIF value for basic customs duty; and (iv) Whether Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was unconstitutional as violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): Whether, for computing countervailing duty under Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the assessable value could be taken as the CIF value plus basic customs duty.

Analysis: Section 3(2) expressly directs that, for calculating additional duty on an imported article, the value shall be the aggregate of the value determined under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the customs duty chargeable under Section 12 of that Act. The fact that import is the taxable event does not mean that valuation must stop at the moment the goods enter territorial waters. The statutory scheme permits inclusion of customs duty in the assessable value for countervailing duty.

Conclusion: The challenge failed and the inclusion of basic customs duty in the assessable value for countervailing duty was upheld against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the imported goods were entitled to the concessional rate under Notification No. 302/79 dated 04.12.1979.

Analysis: The benefit of the exemption notification was conditional. The importer had to satisfy all conditions of the notification, including that the relevant raw material had already suffered the appropriate amount of excise duty. In the case of imported goods, that condition could not be fulfilled. An assessee claiming exemption must bring the case within the four corners of the notification.

Conclusion: The concessional rate was not available and the demand at 42% was sustained against the assessee.

Issue (iii): Whether landing charges were includible in the CIF value for basic customs duty.

Analysis: The record did not establish that landing charges formed part of freight or CIF value. The Court also held that expenses incurred before clearance for home consumption formed part of the value of imported goods and were not post-import charges for valuation purposes.

Conclusion: Landing charges were held includible, and this contention was rejected against the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 was unconstitutional as violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 265 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: Imported goods and locally manufactured goods were held not to be comparable classes for the purpose of Article 14. The Court also rejected the plea of double taxation, holding that the Legislature may adopt different methods for valuing different duties, and that the provision did not infringe the freedom to carry on business merely because the importer might be unable to bear the duty.

Conclusion: Section 3(2) was upheld as constitutionally valid and the challenge failed against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The petition failed in entirety and the levy and valuation adopted by the customs authorities were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Parliament has expressly directed that customs duty be added to the value of imported goods for computing additional duty, that statutory method prevails; exemption notifications must be satisfied strictly according to their terms; and imported goods are not in the same class as indigenous goods for a valuation-based equality challenge.

---