1983 (3) TMI 58 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Inclusion of landing charges in the assessable value of imported goods for customs duty computation.
- Challenge to countervailing duty on imported goods.
- Availability of alternative remedy of appeal under the Customs Act.
- Legality of the prescribed form of bill of entry.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this judgment revolved around the inclusion of landing charges in the assessable value of imported goods for customs duty computation. The petitioners, including various companies such as Woollen Mills Limited, challenged the Customs Authorities' decision to include landing charges in the assessable value of their consignments. Additionally, a demand for countervailing duty on the imported goods was also contested.

2. The petitioners had not availed of the alternative remedy of appeal under the Customs Act before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Court referred to previous judgments, including one by the High Court of Delhi, which emphasized the importance of exhausting statutory remedies before seeking extraordinary jurisdiction. The judgment highlighted that failure to utilize the appeal mechanism under the Customs Act could result in the dismissal of the petition.

3. Despite the petitioners' contentions, the Court acknowledged the precedents that landing charges were includible in the assessable value of imported goods for customs duty assessment. The petitioners' challenge to countervailing duty was deemed inappropriate for writ proceedings as it involved disputed factual inquiries.

4. The legality of the prescribed form of bill of entry, mandated by the Central Board of Excise and Customs under Section 157 of the Customs Act, was also raised. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any specific illegality or prejudice caused by the prescribed form. The Court noted that the required information in the bill of entry pertained to the imported goods and did not present any evident legal flaws.

5. Consequently, the petitioners were directed to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal under the Customs Act. The respondents agreed not to raise objections based on the limitation period for filing appeals if the appeals were lodged within one month from the judgment date. The Court disposed of the Writ Petitions without imposing any costs on either party.