9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Interpretation of exemption notification No. 67/83-C.E. 2. Eligibility for exemption under the notification for imported goods. 3. Requirement of Indian Standard Specifications for exemption. 4. Discharge of bank guarantee and refund of duty. 5. Compliance with Sec. 27 of the Customs Act 1962. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to direct the third respondent to grant exemption under notification No. 67/83-C.E. for bulbs imported. The petitioner imported bulbs under the said notification, claiming nil rate of duty. The Collector of Customs (Appeals) allowed the appeal, stating that even imported goods were entitled to the benefit of the notification. However, the petitioner needed to satisfy the criteria under explanation II of the notification. The respondent contended that as the petitioner did not produce the required Bureau of Indian Standard Certificate, the benefit of the notification was not extended. 2. The central issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to the concession in excise duty for the imported bulbs. The respondent argued that the explanation to the notification referred to Indian Standard Specifications, which would not apply to imported goods. The court directed the clearance of goods subject to payment of basic and auxiliary duty, with a bank guarantee for the balance. The petitioner appealed to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), who required the petitioner to establish compliance with explanation II of the notification. 3. The dispute arose from the requirement of Indian Standard Specifications for exemption under the notification. The petitioner argued that since there were no ISI specifications for bulbs of less than 25 watts, the entry in the table of the notification should be applied, making the bulbs eligible for nil rate of duty. The respondent insisted on furnishing ISI specifications, which the petitioner claimed was impossible due to the lack of relevant specifications. 4. The issue of discharge of bank guarantee and refund of duty was raised. The court noted that the cash deposit of the disputed countervailing duty was retained on the grounds of unjust enrichment, as the importers failed to provide documentary evidence as required under Sec. 27 of the Customs Act 1962. The petitioner's claims of not passing on the duty liability and the respondent's insistence on full payment were contested. 5. Compliance with Sec. 27 of the Customs Act 1962 was a crucial aspect of the case. The respondent argued that the importers had not provided the necessary documentary evidence to support their claim of not passing on the duty paid. The court found that the petitioner failed to establish compliance with the requirements of the notification and the Customs Act, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition for lack of merits.
|
