1979 (12) TMI 152 - Commissioner - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of law regarding levy of countervailing duty on imported goods.
2. Challenge to the vires of the levy of countervailing duty.
3. Examination of the Customs Tariff Act provisions and the Explanation to section 3(1).
4. Reference to the Tariff Commission's report and its relevance to the levy of countervailing duty.
5. Comparison with a Supreme Court judgment on countervailing duty.
6. Analysis of the wording of the Explanation in section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act.
7. Determination of the applicability of countervailing duty corresponding to Item 68 CET in the appeals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the interpretation of law concerning the levy of countervailing duty on imported goods. The appellants disputed the levy of countervailing duty under Item 68 CET, arguing that it is beyond the competence of the Union legislature.

2. The challenge to the vires of the levy of countervailing duty was raised by the appellants, indicating their intention to challenge it in the High Court. They sought to exhaust departmental remedies before approaching the court.

3. The judgment extensively examines the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act, particularly focusing on the Explanation to section 3(1). The Explanation clarifies the basis for levying countervailing duty on goods not manufactured in India.

4. The appellants referred to the Tariff Commission's report, highlighting the pragmatic reasons behind the insertion of the Explanation in the Customs Tariff Act. The judgment analyzes the relevance of this report to the legality of countervailing duty.

5. A comparison was made with a Supreme Court judgment regarding countervailing duty on imported goods. The judgment distinguishes the applicability of countervailing duty under different legal contexts and constitutional provisions.

6. The wording of the Explanation in section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act was thoroughly analyzed. The appellants challenged the interpretation of the Explanation, questioning its application to goods not manufactured in India.

7. Ultimately, the judgment concludes that the levy of countervailing duty corresponding to Item 68 CET in all three appeals was proper. The appeals were rejected based on the interpretation of the Customs Tariff Act provisions and the Explanation to section 3(1).