1992 (7) TMI 91 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to the legality of a judgment dismissing a writ petition seeking a mandamus against the levy of quarterly duty on imported Ortho Oxylene.
2. Interpretation of Notification No. 276/67 and Notification No. 89/82 regarding excise duty exemptions on imported goods.
3. Analysis of the exemption of additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 based on the location of manufacturing zones.
4. Consideration of the applicability of Notification No. 15/83 for excise duty exemptions.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with an appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition seeking relief from the levy of quarterly duty on imported Ortho Oxylene. The company argued that the excise duty exemption under Notification No. 276/67 should prevent the imposition of countervailing duty. However, due to a previous court decision, the company shifted its claim to rely on Notification No. 89/82. The Single Judge dismissed the petition based on the inapplicability of Notification No. 89/82, leading to the current appeal.

2. The court examined the provisions of Notification No. 89/82, which exempted imported goods from additional duty under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, if the excise duty on like goods produced outside a free trade zone was higher. The court upheld the Single Judge's decision, emphasizing that the exemption aimed to prevent financial burden on manufacturers in free trade zones due to differential excise duty rates between zones. The court rejected the appellant's claim to benefit from Notification No. 89/82.

3. The court further clarified that the exemption under Notification No. 89/82 was justified to avoid imposing a higher financial burden on importers compared to manufacturers in free trade zones. The court highlighted the duty-free import of raw materials in free trade zones, resulting in cheaper end products compared to those manufactured outside these zones. The court supported the reasoning behind the notification to balance the cost implications for importers and manufacturers, ultimately affirming the dismissal of the appeal.

4. The appellant attempted to introduce a new argument based on Notification No. 15/83 during the appeal, which was not raised earlier. The court rejected this attempt, stating that fresh contentions cannot be introduced during the appeal without prior mention. The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant was not entitled to any relief under Notification No. 15/83, thereby upholding the decision of the Single Judge and dismissing the appeal with costs.