TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether Notification No. 184-Cus. dated 2-8-1976 entitled the importer to deduct the value of packages from the invoice value of imported goods and avoid customs duty and additional duty on that value, or whether it merely exempted packages from a separate levy. (ii) Whether the writ petitions under Article 32 were maintainable in the circumstances.
Issue (i): Whether Notification No. 184-Cus. dated 2-8-1976 entitled the importer to deduct the value of packages from the invoice value of imported goods and avoid customs duty and additional duty on that value, or whether it merely exempted packages from a separate levy.
Analysis: The Notification exempted packages, containers or the like from customs duty and additional duty only if the stated conditions were satisfied. The Court read clause (a) as a real condition, not as a redundant recital, and held that the Notification did not contemplate splitting the invoice value of the imported goods and deducting the value of packages from it. Duty was being levied on the entire invoice value of the imported goods at the rate applicable to those goods, and the Notification was understood as exempting a separate levy otherwise attracted on the packages themselves. The interpretation that the package value must be deducted from the value of the imported goods was found inconsistent with the scheme of valuation and with the language of the Notification.
Conclusion: The contention of the importer was rejected and the Revenue's interpretation was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petitions under Article 32 were maintainable in the circumstances.
Analysis: The challenge was only to the interpretation of the exemption notification and did not involve enforcement of fundamental rights. The Court also noted that the petitions were filed long after import and the authorities had no practical means to verify whether the conditions of the Notification were satisfied in each case. In these circumstances, direct invocation of Article 32 was held to be misconceived.
Conclusion: The writ petitions under Article 32 were held to be not maintainable.
Final Conclusion: The interpretation adopted by the Revenue and the Bombay High Court was affirmed, resulting in dismissal of the appeal and the connected writ petitions.
Ratio Decidendi: An exemption notification must be construed according to its language and scheme, and where it grants exemption to packages subject to stated conditions, it does not authorise deduction of package value from the assessable value of the imported goods unless that result is clearly provided for.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
