1990 (7) TMI 128 - HC - Customs

Court rules on correct classification of imported films for concessional duty rate under Indian Customs Tariff

MAHENDRA INDUSTRIES Versus GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

The court held that the imported C.N. Films should not have been classified under Item 82(3) of the Indian Customs Tariff but under Item 87. The ... Films - Cellulose Nitrate Films - Exemption Issues Involved:1. Classification of imported goods under the Indian Customs Tariff.2. Entitlement to concessional rate of duty under specific notifications.3. Legality of the orders rejecting the refund claim.4. Applicability of interest on the excess duty collected.Detailed Analysis:1. Classification of Imported Goods under the Indian Customs TariffThe petitioner, a manufacturer of plastic bangles, imported Cellulose Nitrate Films (C.N. Films) and was assessed under Item 82(3) of the Indian Customs Tariff, which imposed a duty of 100% plus 20% countervailing duty. The petitioner contended that the goods should have been assessed under Item 87, not Item 82(3). The court noted that the Supreme Court in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. M/s. K. Mohan & Co., Exports held that plastic films, having a distinct market identity as 'films', do not fall under the description of tubes, rods, sheets, foils, sticks, or other rectangular or profile shapes as per Item 82(3)(b). Thus, C.N. Films could not be classified under Item 82(3)(b).2. Entitlement to Concessional Rate of Duty under Specific NotificationsThe petitioner claimed a concessional rate of duty based on Notification No. 65-Customs dated 30-4-1973 and Notification No. 86-Customs dated 27-11-1974. The court scrutinized these notifications and found that Notification No. 65 exempted Cellulose Nitrate Sheets from excess duty over 60% ad valorem. Notification No. 86 amended this to include Cellulose Nitrate Films as well. The court emphasized that the intent of these notifications was to extend benefits to small-scale industries, and thus, C.N. Films should have been assessed at a concessional rate of 60% ad valorem.3. Legality of the Orders Rejecting the Refund ClaimThe Assistant Collector of Customs and subsequent appellate authorities rejected the petitioner's refund claim, arguing that the goods were correctly assessed under Item 82(3)(b) and that Notification No. 86 was issued after the import date. The court found these orders illegal and without jurisdiction, holding that C.N. Films were wrongly assessed under Item 82(3)(b). The court quashed the order dated 17-7-1982, declining the refund of Rs. 13,637.72p to the petitioner.4. Applicability of Interest on the Excess Duty CollectedThe petitioner sought interest on the excess duty collected due to delays and improper application of notifications by the authorities. The court acknowledged the undue delays and the failure of authorities to properly apply the government notifications. Consequently, the court ordered that a simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum be paid on the amount found refundable to the petitioner.ConclusionThe court concluded that the C.N. Films imported by the petitioner should not have been assessed under Item 82(3)(b) of the Indian Customs Tariff and were entitled to a concessional rate of duty as per Notifications No. 65 and 86. The orders rejecting the refund claim were deemed illegal, and the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the excess duty collected, along with interest at 6% per annum.