AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Bharucha, J.—Two points of law arise in this writ petition and each is covered against the petitioners.
By a Notification issued u/s 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods specified in the Table thereto were, when imported into India, exempted "from so much of that portion of the duty of Customs leviable thereon" as was in excess of the rates specified in the corresponding column of the Table. The argument on behalf of the petitioners was that the expression "duty of customs" covered not only the basic customs duty but also additional and auxiliary duty. A Single Judge of this Court has taken the view that "duty of customs" covers only basic customs duty and not additional or auxiliary duty. The Kerala High Court has taken the same view. A SLP was filed before the Supreme Court against this judgment of the Kerala High Court and it was dismissed by order dated 12th September 1984 in SLP (C) 16629/44, M/s. Kathayee Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Union of India. This point must, therefore, be decided against the petitioners.
The other point that is urged in the petition is that the respondents are not entitled to load the assessable value of imported goods, for the purpose of determining the customs duty thereon, with the landing charges paid in respect of those goods. This point also stands covered against the petitioners by reason of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Traders Vs. Union of India and another, .
Mr. Andhyarujina, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has, however, made it clear that the petitioners will remain free to urge, in the event that appeals from the orders of CEGAT upholding the validity of the loading of landing charges were not allowed by the Supreme Court, that only the charges actually paid to the Port Trust can be so loaded and not the arbitrary figure of 0.75% of the c.i.f. value.
In the result, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
As regards the payment of duty on the exemption claimed in respect of additional duty and auxiliary duty, the petitioners are permitted to pay the amounts due and payable under the interim orders of this court dated 5th November, 1982, 9th March, 1984, 27th April, 1984 and 29th June, 1984, inclusive of interest where so ordered, on or before 31st December, 1991. We record the undertaking of the petitioners, given on their behalf by their counsel to court that the petitioners shall keep alive the bank guarantees furnished by them in this behalf until payment as aforesaid has been made.
Prothonotary to act on the minutes.