WAVIN INDIA LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals are preferred against the common order dated 1 -7 -1994 passed by learned single Judge in Writ Petitions 12251 and 12253 of 1984.

(2.) THE petitioner is common in both the appeals and the writ petitions. It has sought for issue of a writ in the nature ofmandamusdirecting the 2nd respondent, the Assistant Collector of Customs, Kandla Port, Kandla, Gujarat not to load the value of the goods of 1750 metric tonnes of PVC Resins arrived on board s.s. Vishwadharma covered by bills of lading numbers 33 to 47 and 81 to 100 dated 20 -10 -1984 and 22 -10 -1984 respectively with the customs duty for the purpose of levy of additional duty (countervailing duty) under Section 3(2)(ii) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. In writ petition 12253 of 1984, it has sought for a declaration to the effect that the levy of countervailing duty under Section 3(2)(ii) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 in respect of the goods of 1, 750 M.T. of PVC Resins arrived on board s.s. Vishwadharma covered by bills of lading numbers 33 to 47 and 81 to 100 dated 20 -10 -1984 and 22 -10 -1984 respectively asultra viresthe Constitution of India and pass such other orders as may be deemed fit. In support of the aforesaid prayers, the petitioner has relied upon three Notifications dated 2 -8 -1976, 31 -1 -1979 and 11 -5 -1984 produced at pages 1 to 7 of the typed set of records.

(3.) SHRI G. Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant laid great stress on the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and also the provisions contained in Section 3(1) and (2) of the Customs Tariff Act and the aforesaid Notifications and submitted that as the additional duty is leviable under Section 12 of the Customs Act and the exemption of customs duty can be granted only under Section 25 of the Customs Act, the fact that the Notifications are issued under Section 25, would go to show that with regard to any duty whether it is additional or the customs duty being the duty of customs only, the appellant is entitled to the exemption as provided under the aforesaid Notifications. It is also further submitted that the learned single Judge is not correct in holding that the aforesaid Notifications do not exempt to the extent the exemption contained therein the payment of additional duty.