1985 (9) TMI 95 - HC - Customs

Manganese Ore high grade (battery grade) - Imported in form of moist coarse grains and coarse powder - Tariff Rulings - Adjudication

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported manganese ore under the correct tariff item.
2. Jurisdiction of customs authorities to reclassify the imported goods.
3. Prematurity of the writ application.
4. Availability and efficacy of alternative remedies.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Manganese Ore:
The respondent, Union Carbide India Limited, imported high-grade manganese ore for manufacturing dry cell batteries and classified it under tariff Item no.26, which pertains to "metallic ores." The customs authorities initially allowed the clearance of a portion of the goods under this classification. However, they later reclassified the remaining goods under tariff Item no.28, which pertains to "chemicals," resulting in a higher duty rate. The respondent protested this reclassification, arguing that the goods were metallic ores and should be classified under Item no.26.

The court noted that the imported manganese ore was in the form of moist coarse grain and coarse powder with 83.1% manganese dioxide. The customs authorities based their reclassification on a chemical test report and a direction from the Central Board of Revenue, which stated that battery grade manganese ore in coarse grain or powder form should be assessed under Item no.28.

The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in the Wolfram case (Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India Limited v. Union of India), which held that ores in powder or granule form remain ores unless roasted or chemically treated. The court found no evidence that the imported manganese ore had undergone such processing and concluded that it should be classified under Item no.26.

2. Jurisdiction of Customs Authorities:
The respondent challenged the customs authorities' jurisdiction to reclassify the manganese ore under Item no.28. The court observed that the customs authorities acted based on a direction from the Central Board of Revenue without any acceptable material or basis to support their decision. The court emphasized that assessing authorities, acting as quasi-judicial bodies, cannot decide issues based on surmise or administrative directions without a reasonable basis.

3. Prematurity of the Writ Application:
The appellants argued that the respondent's writ application was premature, as the customs authorities had not yet made a final decision. However, the court noted that the authorities had already assessed a part of the consignment under Item no.28 and collected duty accordingly. This indicated that the authorities had made up their mind, making it futile for the respondent to participate in further adjudication proceedings. The court held that the writ application was not premature.

4. Availability and Efficacy of Alternative Remedies:
The appellants contended that the respondent should have pursued alternative remedies, such as appeals under the relevant statute. The court, however, held that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar a writ petition, especially when the jurisdiction of the authorities is challenged. The court found that the alternative remedies were not as efficacious as the relief available under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The court affirmed the judgment of the learned single Judge, directing the customs authorities to assess and collect customs duty on the manganese ore under Item no.26 and to refund the excess duty collected. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the reclassification and assessment by the customs authorities were without jurisdiction and based on insufficient grounds. The respondent's writ application was neither premature nor barred by the availability of alternative remedies.