9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (7) TMI 370X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome of the cases an additional ground taken is that the duty should be charged which was applicable on the date when the goods entered the territorial waters of India and not the duty which may be applicable on the date of filing of bill of lading. Both the above points are now covered by the decisions of a Constitution Bench of this Court in M. Jhangir Bhatusha Etc. Etc. v. Union of India and Ors. etc etc. and Bharat Surfactants (Pvt.) Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. 1989(3) SCR 307. The learned Counsel for the petitioners tried to distinguish M.J. Bhatusha's case by referring the following observations in this case: It is true that the State dons robes of a trader when it enters the field of commercial activity, and ordina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hen even if no import duty is charged on the 75,000 tonnes of aluminium and it would be much higher if duty is charged on the same. The Corporation also pointed out that whereas the amount payable to the Corporation from the Aluminium Regulation Account to neutralise the loss would be about rupees 18 crores, the actual amount available in the said account for disbursement to the Corporation could be approximately rupees 4 crores only. Therefore, the Corporation requested the Union Government to consider the arrangements to be made to reimburse at least rupees 18 crores to the Corporation on account of the import of aluminium to be undertaken by the Corporation on the direction of the Government of India. After taking into consideration all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the Aluminium Regulation Account for payment to the Corporation with a view to compensate it for the loss suffered by it in selling the metal at a price below costs. 3. We are fully satisfied that the above action taken by the Central Government was done in the larger interest of the economy of the country and in public interest. As we are taking the view that the above explanation given by the respondents has been taken in larger public interest, the decision given in M.J. Bhatusha's case is fully applicable in these cases also. 4. In Bharat Surfactants's case it has been held that the rate of duty and tariff valuation has to be determined in accordance with Section 15(1) of the Customs Act. Under Section 15(1)(a), the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
