1957 (5) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on business in  paper. These writ petitions are directed to question the validity of the assessment to customs duty effected by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Madras, who has been impleaded as a respondent in these writ petitions. W.P. No. 807 of 1956 relates to duty levied upon the import of newsprint which arrived in Madras in or about September, 1954 while W.P. No. 1016 of 1956 is with regard to the duty levied upon certain imports which came to Madras in or about 31-3-1952. The point in controversy in these writ petitions, as I have stated earlier, is with regard to the propriety of the quantum of duty levied upon the petitioner in respect of the two imports. The petitioner imported under O.G.L. newsprint containing not less t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal to the Collector of Customs who rejected it by his order dated 11-5-1955 which ran as follows:— "In the absence of any evidence to indicate that the paper imported by the appellant in this case was intended to be utilised in the printing of newspapers as required by the prevailing orders of the Government of India. I see no reason to interfere with the orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraising already passed. The appeal is rejected accordingly". 6.In relation to the later import and which is the subject matter of WP No 807 of 1956 the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs refusing refund was grounded on a different objection. This order dated 13-6-1955/11-7-1955 ran in these terms:—"The width of the newsprint....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h I have extracted above. Since the requirements of S. No. 44 have been satisfied by the petitioner's consignment the petitioner is entitled to have that consignment assessed to Customs duty on the basis that it is newsprint". Learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute that if the principle of the decision of Rajagopalan J. were applied to the facts of the present case the order of the Customs Authorities levying a higher rate of duty could not be sustained.  8.The only objections raised to the claim of the petitioner were therefore of a technical nature. They were :- (1) that there has been a gross delay in the filing of the writ petitions and, therefore, this court should not interfere with the orders now impugned; (....