CONTINENTAL EXPORTERS Vs. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorarified mandamus or other appropriate writ calling for the records of the respondent culminating in his order dated 15 -6 -1987 bearing Ref. No. S. 59/128/87 Gr -4, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to release goods covered by IGM. No. 25/87 and Line Nos. 179, 180 and 181 on payment of 50% of the differential duty under the Heading 7317.00 of the I Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be engaged in the manufacture of ready -made garments for export to various countries and imported a consignment of staples from Max Co. Ltd. and when it submitted the necessary Bill of Entry on the arrival of goods at Madras Port for clearance, it classified the goods under the Heading 73.17 of the Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, since according to the petitioner, the staples were iron and steel articles. It is also stated in the affidavit filed in support of the present writ petition that on an earlier occasion, when a similar issue came up before this Court for consideration in W.P. No. 1429 of 1985, Venkataswami, J. (as he then was) rejected the claim of the Department that the goods of the nature under consideration were classifiable under Tariff Item 83.01/15(2) and instead held that they would fall under Tariff Item 73.31. The said order was also said to have been confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court on a writ appeal filed by the Department in Writ Appeal 451 of 1984 by judgment dated 28 -06 -1985. On the above basis, the petitioner claims that the articles in question would fall under the Heading 73.17 (the corresponding entry), that the claim is quite in order and could not have been rejected by the Department.

(3.) MR . Ilias Ali, learned counsel appearing for the Department while referring to the order under challenge, contended that the said view in the decisions referred to and relied upon for the petitioner was taken on the basis of the particular description of the entry or head as it stood at the relevant point of time and not with reference to or in the context of amendments introduced in the year 1986, and therefore, the petitioner could no longer lay its claim successfully on the basis of the earlier judgments of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent/Department took me through the difference in the original entries as it fell for consideration of this Court on the earlier occasion and the entries as they stand after the amendment with effect from 28 -2 -1986 to contend that the articles of the nature imported by the petitioner would only fall under Heading 83.05.