2017 (5) TMI 547 - AT - Customs

Interpretation of Statute - N/N. 17/2001-Cus. dated 1.3.2001 - interpretation of the symbol - - effective additional duty of customs chargeable on the goods imported by the appellant - rate of duty for automatic cone winding machine with yarn splicer and auto doffing system - Held that - The language of the statute should be read as it is, as opined by Justice G.P. Singh in his book Principles of Statutory Interpretation . The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be gathered from the language used, which means that attention should be paid to what has been said as also to what has not been said. The interpretation of - under Col. 5 can only be interpreted as Nil rate of duty and not otherwise - as per the entry 245, there cannot be any rate charged in excess of - for additional duty which would only translate to the conclusion that there would be no additional duty in this case. This is only logical and legal interpretation that can be drawn from this Notification. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
Interpretation of Notification No.17/2001-Cus. dated 1.3.2001 regarding effective additional duty of customs chargeable on imported goods.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No.17/2001-Cus. dated 1.3.2001
The appeal centered around the interpretation of the notification, specifically focusing on the effective additional duty of customs chargeable on goods imported by the appellant. The goods in question were an "automatic" cone winding machine with yarn splicer and auto doffing system falling under Sl. No.245 of the notification. The notification exempted goods specified in Col. 3 from customs duty exceeding the rates in Col. 4 and from additional duty exceeding the rates in Col. 5, subject to conditions in Col. 6. The dispute arose due to the absence of a specific rate mentioned in Col. 5 for the impugned goods, leading to a contention on whether the appellant was liable to pay additional duty at a merit rate of 16%.

Issue 2: Interpretation of the Symbol "-"
The core of the dispute revolved around the interpretation of the symbol "-" in Col. 5 of the notification. The appellant argued that "-" should be construed as a Nil rate of duty, thereby absolving them from paying the additional duty at the merit rate of 16%. Conversely, the respondent contended that where Nil duty was intended, it was explicitly mentioned, and "-" indicated that the merit rate had not been altered. The argument further delved into the impact of such interpretation on providing a level playing field for domestic manufacturers against imported goods.

Judicial Analysis:
The Tribunal analyzed the notification's language and intent, emphasizing that where statutory language is clear, external aids are unnecessary. The notification aimed to exempt specified goods from customs duty exceeding prescribed rates in Col. 4 and additional duty exceeding rates in Col. 5, subject to conditions in Col. 6. The Tribunal highlighted that the absence of a specific rate in Col. 5 for the impugned goods meant no duty could be charged in excess of "-", leading to the logical interpretation that no additional duty was applicable in this case. The Tribunal stressed the absence of any legal precedent or higher court interpretation supporting the respondent's argument.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the symbol "-" in Col. 5 should be interpreted as a Nil rate of duty, thereby ruling in favor of the appellant. The appeal was allowed with any consequential relief deemed necessary. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the notification's provisions and the legal interpretation of the symbol "-", ensuring clarity on the duty liability for the imported goods in question.