TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (7) TMI 89
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llers & Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, against exports made by the said licencee. The licences were transferred to M/s. Ashoka Enterprises, New Delhi, which in turn, further transferred the licences in favour of the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner claims to have entered into an agreement with M/s. Business Birds, Singapore, for the supply of `Cups' of Chinese manufacture and said to be component parts of Ball Bearings. The foreign supplier shipped the goods in three different lots from Singapore to Bombay Port. The first consignment of 8600 pieces was sent from Singapore to Bombay on 5-1-1986 per Steam Ship, HANLIM MARINER. The ship arrived in Bombay on or about 15th January, 1986 and the consignment was cleared by the Revenue charging import duty at the then prevailing rates though, however, on the question of assessable values the Revenue did not accept the invoice value. The controversy in regard to that particular consignment was as to valuation and not as to the rates of import duty. 3. The two further consignments of 5000 and 13000 `CUPS' respectively under invoice dated 2-2-1986 are stated to have arrived at Bombay Port on or about 10-2-1986. The petitioner filed t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... condition in sub-section (3) of Section 25 which requires that the duty shall in no case exceed the "statutory duty". It is said that respecting `parts' of Ball Bearings there was no "statutory duty" at all. Thirdly, it was urged that the duty imposed constituted an unreasonable restriction on petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(g), in that the enhancement brought about by the impugned Notification, so far as the present consignments were concerned, was to raise the petitioner's liability from Rs. 1,84,341/- to Rs. 6,42,065/-. 5. Before assessing the merits of these contentions it is necessary to advert to the relevant statutory provisions relating to the rates of duty on imports of Ball Bearings and Roller Bearings and parts thereof under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. Chapter 84 deals, amongst other things, with Ball or Roller Bearings. The relevant provisions say :- 84.62 Ball, roller or needle roller bearings : (1) Ball and roller bearings not elsewhere specified. 100% plus Rs. 100 per bearing (2) Ball bearings of all types, not exceeding 60 millimetres bore diameter 200% plus Rs. 100 per bearing (3) Roller bearings, including needle ro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; The impugned notification did not prescribe a rate higher than the statutory duty. 6. The contention of Sri Ganesh that the relevant date with reference to which the rates of customs duty require to be ascertained had already occurred by the time the impugned Notification No. 142/86-Cus. came into force is, on the facts of the present case, clearly untenable. Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides : "If the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, it may, by notification in the official Gazette, exempt generally either absolutely or subject to such conditions (to be fulfilled before or after clearance), as may be specified in the notification goods of any specified description from the whole or any part of duty of customs leviable thereon." In Bharat Surfactants (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Union of India, in 1989 (43) E.L.T., p. 189, at p. 194 this Court held : "The provisions of Sec. 15 are clear in themselves. The date on w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Singapore of which ignorance could provide no excuse on a charge of contravention of the section. Their Lordships are unable to accept this contention. In their Lordship's opinion, even if the making of the order by the minister be regarded as an exercise of the legislative as distinct from the executive or administrative function (as they do not concede), the maxim cannot apply to such a case as the present where it appears that there is in the State of Singapore no provision, corresponding, for example, to that contained in S. 3(2) of the English Statutory Instruments Act, 1946, for the publication in any form of an order of the kind made in the present case or any other provision designed to enable a man by appropriate inquiry to find out what "the law" is." 8. But then in State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George [AIR 1965 SC 722 at 742] Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. referred to the following comment of Prof. C.K. Allen on Johnson v. Sargant : "This was a bold example of judgment-made law. There was no precedent for it, and indeed a decision, Jones v. Robson, (1901) 1 KB 673 which, though not on all fours, militated strongly against the judge's conclusion, was not cited; nor did ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....han governance by Parliamentary legislation. But unlike Parliamentary legislation which is publicly made, delegated or subordinate legislation is often made unobtrusively in the chambers of a Minister, a Secretary to the Government or other official dignitary. It is, therefore, necessary that subordinate legislation, in order to take effect, must be published or promulgated in some suitable manner, whether such publication or promulgation is prescribed by the parent statute or not. It will then take effect from the date of such publication or promulgation." 9. In the present case indisputably the mode of publication prescribed by Section 25(1) was complied with. The notification was published in the Official Gazette on the 13th February, 1986. As to the effect of the publication in the Official Gazette, this Court held (Srinivasan's case Supra at p. 1067) : "Where the parent statute is silent, but the subordinate legislation itself prescribes the manner of publication, such a mode of publication may be sufficient, if reasonable. If the subordinate legislation does not prescribe the mode of publication or if the subordinate legislation prescribes a plainly unreasonable mode of pub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....65 and 85.28) are in all cases to be classified in their respective Headings; (b) other parts, if suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine, or with a number of machines falling within the same Heading (including a machine falling within Heading No. 84.59 or electrical goods and apparatus falling within Heading No. 84.59 or electrical goods and apparatus falling within Heading No. 85.18/27) are to be classified with the machines of that kind. However, goods which are equally suitable for use principally with the goods of Heading Nos. 85.13 and 85.15 are to be classified in Heading No. 85.13; (c) all other parts are to be classified in Heading No. 84.65 or 85.28." These notes which are part of the Tariff provisions read with the Tariff indicate that the `parts' and components of Ball and Roller Bearings are not excluded as contended. This contention has no substance. As indicated earlier the rates prescribed in the impugned notification do not also exceed the rates of statutory duty. The second contention of Sri Ganesh is not substantial either. 12. The third and the last submission is that the sudden and sharp increase of duty steeply puts up the ....