1979 (11) TMI 108 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Entry 35 versus Entry 87 for customs duty assessment.
2. Interpretation of "form indicative of use for manurial purposes" in Entry 35.
3. Consideration of end-use versus form of the imported goods.
4. Relevance of revisional authority's interpretation and decision.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Applicability of Entry 35 versus Entry 87 for customs duty assessment
The primary issue in this case was whether the imported rock phosphate should be assessed under Entry 35, which pertains to "Manures, all sorts, including...mineral phosphates, imported in a form indicative of their use for manurial purposes," or under the residuary Entry 87, which covers "All other articles not otherwise specified." The petitioner contended that Entry 35 was applicable, thus exempting the goods from customs duty, while the respondents argued for the applicability of Entry 87, which would impose a 60% ad valorem duty.

Issue 2: Interpretation of "form indicative of use for manurial purposes" in Entry 35
The court emphasized that the phrase "imported in a form indicative of their use for manurial purposes" in Entry 35 focuses on the form of the goods at the time of importation, not their ultimate use. The court held that rock phosphate, being a chemical fertilizer, satisfies the requirements of Entry 35 if it is in a form that indicates it can be used for manurial purposes. The court stated, "It is the form of the goods imported which must indicate whether they are capable of being used for manurial purposes and not the use to which the goods may ultimately be put to."

Issue 3: Consideration of end-use versus form of the imported goods
The respondents argued that the end-use of the rock phosphate should determine its classification, asserting that since the petitioner did not intend to use it for manurial purposes, Entry 35 should not apply. The court rejected this argument, clarifying that Entry 35 does not require the goods to be actually used as manure but only to be in a form indicative of such use. The court stated, "There is nothing in Entry 35 to suggest either expressly or by implication that the yard-stick to be adopted is the ultimate or the end-use to which the rock phosphate shall be put to."

Issue 4: Relevance of revisional authority's interpretation and decision
The revisional authority had upheld the assessment under Entry 87, focusing on the end-use of the rock phosphate and its general commercial quality. The court found this interpretation to be erroneous, stating that the revisional authority's decision was based on a misconception of Entry 35. The court noted, "The very basis of the order is on a misconception of Entry 35, emphasising the end-user and not the form of the article imported as indicative of its use for manurial purposes."

Conclusion:
The court set aside the impugned orders dated 21st June 1972, 16th November 1972, and 2nd August 1975 passed by the Deputy Collector of Customs, the Appellate Authority, and the Revisional Authority, respectively. The court allowed Miscellaneous Petition No. 206 of 1976, directing the authorities to refund the amount of Rs. 6,82,231.88 within three months. The court emphasized that the form of the imported rock phosphate, being indicative of its use for manurial purposes, was sufficient to attract the exemption under Entry 35, irrespective of its ultimate use.