PORT TRUST MADRAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner herein imported three consignments of steel tie rods with nuts, turn buckles, anchor plates and washers on three different occasions under Bills of Entry D. No. 1195, dated 12-8-1964 , No. D. 1791, dated 18-8-1964 and D. No. 1793, dated 18-8-1964. Customs duty was levied on these consignments under Item 63 (28) of the Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934. Subsequently, the petitioner applied for refund of excess duty on the ground that the import of the articles come properly within the scope of item 63 (9) and therefore, the articles were liable to duty at the rate applicable to the goods coming within the scope of that Item and hence the petitioner was entitled to the refund of the excess duty. This application for refund of duty was dismissed by the Assistant Collector of Customs, Appraising Department, Madras and the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Collector of Customs, Madras and these appeals were dismissed. THEreafter, the petitioner preferred revision petitions to the Government of India, and the Government of India informed the petitioner that they have carefully considered the revision application but saw no reason to interfere with the order in appeal passed by the Appellate collector of Customs, Madras . It is under these circumstances that the three writ petitions in respect of the three consignments have been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorari to quash the orders referred to above.

(2.) THE only point in controversy is whether the goods imported by the petitioner fall within Item 63 (9) or not. It is the common case of the parties that if they do not fall under Item 63 (9) then it is assessable to duty only under Item 63 (28 ). Hence, the very narrow question that arise for consideration is whether the goods imported by the petitioner fall within the scope of Item 63 (9) or not. For this purpose, it is necessary to refer Item 63 (9) as well as Item 63 (28 ). Item 63 (9) is as follows :- "iron or Steel structures, fabricated partially or wholly not other wise specified if made mainly or wholly of iron or steel bars, sections, plates or sheets, for the construction of buildings bridges, tanks, well curbs, trostles, towers and similar structures or for parts thereof but not including builders'hardware or any of the articles specified in Item Nos. 72, 72 (3), 74 (1), 75 (3), 75 (4), or 76 (1)" Item 63 (28) is as follows :- " All sorts of iron and steel and manufactures thereof not other wise specified. " * Thus, it will be seen that Item 63 (28) is a residuary item and if an article falls under any one of the specified items, that articles cannot fall under Item 63 (28 ). With the result, the question for consideration is whether the imported goods fall under Item 63 (9) or not. For an item to fall under Item 63 (9), the very first condition that has to be satisfied is that the goods must be "iron or steel structures", whether the goods fulfill the requirements of the other parts of the Item or not, the goods cannot fall within the said Items. Hence, the crucial question for determinations whether the goods imported by the petitioner constitutes "iron or steel structures".

(3.) IN this context, the Court stated thus :- "the expression'structure'is not a technical term of art. The plain and popular import of the expression furnishes the true role of its interpretation. The expression'structure'means some construction, or fabrication some production artificially constructed and fashioned in some definite manner" * .