1993 (12) TMI 56 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus against Respondents to release imported goods without countervailing duty.
2. Classification of imported synthetic soft waste under the Central Excise Tariff Act.
3. Dispute regarding the liability to pay duty under Tariff Item 18IV or Item 68.
4. Examination of reports submitted by the Respondents to determine the classification of imported goods.
5. Decision on the liability to pay duty under the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Analysis:
1. The petitioners filed a petition under Article 226 seeking a Writ of Mandamus against the Respondents to release imported synthetic soft waste without charging countervailing duty. The petitioners also sought a declaration that the goods are not liable for countervailing duty. Interim relief was granted by the Court for clearance of goods upon furnishing a bank guarantee.

2. The petitioners imported synthetic waste falling under Tariff Item No. 56.05/04 of the Customs Tariff Act. They argued that the waste was exempt from duty under the Central Excise Tariff Act. However, based on a previous judgment, it was established that synthetic waste is dutiable under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1983-84. The Court upheld this position, making the imported goods liable for duty under Item 68.

3. The Respondents contended that the imported goods fell under Tariff Item 18IV, making the petitioners liable to pay duty accordingly. Reports submitted by the Respondents were examined to determine the classification of the goods. The Court found discrepancies in the reports and rejected the contention that the goods fell under Item 18IV, concluding that the petitioners were liable to pay duty under Tariff Item 68.

4. The Respondents relied on reports from the Deputy Chief Chemist and SASMIRA to support their classification of the imported goods. While one report indicated the goods fell under Item 18IV, the Court found inconsistencies in connecting the reports to the specific Bill of Entry in question. As a result, the Court rejected the Respondents' argument based on these reports.

5. The Court partially allowed the petition, declaring that the petitioners were liable to pay duty under Tariff Item 68. The Respondents were entitled to enforce the bank guarantee and recover the duty payable with interest. The duty was confirmed to be payable under Tariff Item 68, and no costs were awarded in the case.