9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of Note 2 in Chapter 89 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 2. Basis for levying import duty on vessels for breaking up. 3. Interpretation and application of relevant provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. 4. Allegation of unreasonable and discriminatory taxation. 5. Date for determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation of imported goods. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutional Validity of Note 2 in Chapter 89 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975: The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of Note 2 in Chapter 89, arguing that it empowers the department to levy import duty based on the highest L.D.T. indicated in the Stability Book or Builder's certificate, which they claim is beyond the scope of government powers. The Court held that the subject matter of import duty is not the weight of the ship but the vessel itself. Note 2 merely lays down the rule of evidence for determining the weight of the vessel for tax purposes. The Court emphasized that the measure of duty is within the competence of the Parliament and that Note 2 does not conflict with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Basis for Levying Import Duty on Vessels for Breaking Up: The petitioners argued that import duty should be levied on the actual weight of the vessel imported into India, which is less than the weight registered in the Stability Book or Builder's certificate. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the tariff entry is clear that the tax is on vessels and floating structures for breaking up. The reference to L.D.T. is a measure for tax calculation, and Note 2 provides a conclusive proof of the vessel's weight for tax purposes. The Court cited Supreme Court rulings affirming that the measure for assessing a tax should not be confused with the nature of the tax itself. 3. Interpretation and Application of Relevant Provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975: The Court examined various provisions, including Sections 12, 15, 22, 23, and 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 2 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. It was noted that the Central Government is empowered to levy customs duties on goods imported into India. The Court found that Note 2 in Chapter 89 provides a clear method for assessing the levy of import duty on vessels for breaking up, thus avoiding uncertainties and potential manipulations. 4. Allegation of Unreasonable and Discriminatory Taxation: The petitioners argued that Note 2 results in unreasonable and discriminatory taxation, as it does not account for the actual tonnage availability of different vessels. The Court dismissed this contention, stating that the tax is on the vessel, and the basis for assessment is the registered L.D.T. as indicated in the Note. The Court emphasized that the Note introduces reasonableness, certainty, and convenience for both the importer and the assessing authority, thereby avoiding arbitrariness and discrimination. 5. Date for Determination of Rate of Duty and Tariff Valuation of Imported Goods: In Special Civil Application No. 4968 of 1990, the petitioners contended that the bill of entry filed on March 19, 1990, should determine the rate of duty, not the date when the vessel was actually brought to Alang on March 28, 1990. The Court held that the provisions of Section 46(3) proviso (2) do not apply, as the vessel itself is the goods imported, not a conveyance. The date for determining the rate of duty is when the goods are ready for inspection by the Port Officer, which was March 28, 1990. Conclusion: The Court upheld the constitutional validity of Note 2 in Chapter 89 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and found the basis for levying import duty on vessels for breaking up to be just and proper. The Court rejected the allegations of unreasonable and discriminatory taxation and clarified the date for determining the rate of duty and tariff valuation of imported goods. All petitions were rejected, and the rule was discharged.
|
