1983 (7) TMI 176 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Inclusion of landing charges in the value of goods for the levy of basic customs duty.
2. Legality of levying countervailing duty on the imported goods.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Inclusion of Landing Charges in the Value of Goods for Levy of Basic Customs Duty:

Arguments by Appellants:
- The appellants contended that landing charges, for which an addition of 0.6% to the CIF value was made, amounted to post-importation charges.
- They argued that the addition was more than the actual expenses incurred in the Port Trust area and claimed a refund of Rs. 116.47 if inclusion was necessary.

Arguments by Respondent:
- The respondent cited judicial pronouncements, specifically the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Bhartiya Plastic Udyog and Another v. Union of India and Others, which held that landing charges were not post-importation expenses and were includible in the assessable value.

Tribunal's Decision:
- The Tribunal referenced clear judicial decisions, including the Delhi High Court judgment in Super Traders and Another v. Union of India and Others, which held that landing charges should be included in the assessable value under Section 14 of the Customs Act.
- The Tribunal noted that no evidence was provided by the appellants to substantiate their actual expenses in the Port Trust area.
- It upheld the practice of adding a flat percentage to the CIF value for landing charges, which was 0.6% at the relevant time, and rejected the appellants' contention for a refund.
- Conclusion: The landing charges were correctly levied.

2. Legality of Levying Countervailing Duty on the Imported Goods:

Arguments by Appellants:
- The appellants argued that Section 3(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, did not authorize the levy of countervailing duty on imported articles not produced or manufactured in India.
- They relied on the "Notes on Clauses" of Section 3(1) and provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, to support their argument.

Arguments by Respondent:
- The respondent argued that under Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, countervailing duty was leviable regardless of whether such goods were produced or manufactured in India.
- The respondent cited the Tribunal's decision in M/s. Dai-ichi Karkaria Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, and Supreme Court cases to support that there was no room for intendment in the construction of a taxing statute.

Tribunal's Decision:
- The Tribunal referred to Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, and its explanation, which clarified that countervailing duty was applicable whether or not a like article was produced or manufactured in India.
- It emphasized the primary rule of literal construction of statutes, stating that the clear wording of the statute must be followed.
- The Tribunal rejected the appellants' argument that the explanation to Section 3(1) could not control the law contained in that Sub-section.
- It clarified that the differentiation between articles produced or manufactured in India and those not produced or manufactured was only for calculating the quantum of duty, not the liability for additional duty.
- The Tribunal found no merit in the appellants' argument regarding the "class or description of articles" and rejected the creation of different classes of goods based on their production status in India.
- Conclusion: The countervailing duty was correctly levied.

Final Judgment:
The Tribunal upheld the orders of the authorities below and rejected the two appeals, finding no merit in the various contentions raised by the appellants.