1979 (6) TMI 45 - HC - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 82/60 dated 6th August 1960.
2. Classification of imported component parts under the Indian Tariff Code.
3. Distinction between stationary and vehicular types of diesel engines.
4. Application of Tariff Entries 72(a) and 75(10) to 75(12).
5. Jurisdiction and scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 82/60 dated 6th August 1960:
The primary issue was whether the imported component parts utilized for vehicular types of diesel engines were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 82/60, issued under Section 23 of the Sea Customs Act. The notification exempted component parts required for the initial setting up, assembly, or manufacture of machinery from customs duty, provided they were certified by the Development Wing of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and a bond was executed by the importer. The purpose of the exemption was to encourage indigenous manufacture by importing components not available domestically.

2. Classification of imported component parts under the Indian Tariff Code:
The petitioners imported component parts for internal combustion engines between 1964 and 1968 and declared them under Notification No. 82/60 for assembling stationary type diesel engines. The Assistant Collector of Customs later classified these components under Item No. 75(10) of the Indian Tariff Code, arguing that the components used for vehicular diesel engines did not qualify for the exemption, leading to a demand for additional customs duty.

3. Distinction between stationary and vehicular types of diesel engines:
The petitioners contended that the distinction between stationary and vehicular types of diesel engines was outside the scope of the notification and that the classification made by the Customs Authorities was incorrect and illegal. They argued that the components were imported for assembling diesel engines and used accordingly, making them eligible for the exemption.

4. Application of Tariff Entries 72(a) and 75(10) to 75(12):
The petitioners argued that diesel engines fall within Tariff Entry 72(a), which includes machinery and apparatus like fire engines and prime-movers. They claimed that the diesel engines, even when fitted on dumpers, should be classified under Entry 72(a) and not under Entries 75(10) to 75(12), which pertain to transport materials and vehicle parts. The court noted that Entries 75(10) and 75(11) refer to engine components and not to engines as a whole. Entry 75(12) was also found inapplicable as it pertains to parts and accessories of motor vehicles, and the proviso to Entry 75(13) indicated that articles used otherwise than as vehicle parts should be dutiable at rates specified for such articles.

5. Jurisdiction and scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The court emphasized its jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere when findings are patently erroneous or based on an incorrect construction of statutory entries. The court found that the Customs Authorities' interpretation was erroneous and that the petitioners were entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 82/60. The court held that the diesel engines, primarily used for industrial applications, should be classified under Entry 72(a) and not under the transport material entries.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the orders of the Customs Authorities and directed the refund of Rs. 9,91,537.14 to the petitioners, recognizing their entitlement to the exemption under Notification No. 82/60. The court found the Customs Authorities' classification and demand for additional duty to be based on an erroneous interpretation of the relevant tariff entries. The rule was made absolute in favor of the petitioners, with no order as to costs.

← Previous Next →