9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Classification of imported aluminium rods for customs duties and countervailing duty. Analysis: The judgment involves a dispute regarding the classification of imported aluminium rods for customs duties and countervailing duty. The petitioner, a public limited company, imported aluminium rods which were initially classified as non-ferrous alloys subject to customs duties under Item 70(1) of the First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act. However, the Customs authorities also levied countervailing duty under Item 27 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, treating the imported items as aluminium rods subject to excise duty. The company claimed a refund of the countervailing duty, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Customs but allowed on appeal by the Appellate Collector. Subsequently, the Government of India reversed the decision, leading the company to seek relief through a writ of certiorari from the High Court. The key legal provisions at play were Section 2 and Section 2A of the Tariff Act, along with Item 66(1) and 70(1) of the First Schedule to the Tariff Act and Item 27 of the First Schedule to the Excise Act. The Court analyzed the distinction made in the Tariff Act between non-ferrous alloys and aluminium in different forms, emphasizing that the classification for customs duties under Section 2 of the Tariff Act may differ from that for countervailing duty under Section 2A. The Court held that while the imported goods were correctly classified as non-ferrous alloys for customs duties, they fell under the description of aluminium rods chargeable to excise duty under Item 27 of the Excise Act, justifying the imposition of countervailing duty. The Court rejected the company's argument that the classification for customs duties should prevail for countervailing duty purposes. It emphasized that Section 2A of the Tariff Act focuses on the excise duty liability of imported articles, necessitating reference to the Excise Act for classification. The Court concluded that the provisions of the Tariff Act and the Excise Act have distinct bases of classification, and each section must be interpreted independently without interlinking classifications. Therefore, the company's objection to the countervailing duty was deemed untenable, resulting in the dismissal of the petition with no order as to costs.
|
