KOTHARI OPTICAL INDUSTRIES Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHRI Sawant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, very fairly stated that two out of the three questions arising in this petition stand concluded by decision of Division Bench of this Court reported in 1987 (32) E. L. T. 262 (Bom.) (Ashok Traders v. Union of India and another ). The only contention which survives for consideration is in respect of notification dated august 2, 1976 issued by the Government of India under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the customs Tariff Act, 1975. The notification inter alia provides that the additional duty on imported articles specified in column No. 2 of the table annexed shall be equal to the excise duty for the time being leviable on the material specified on the corresponding entry in column No. 3 of the table to the extent that material is used in the manufacture of imported articles. Article set out in column No. 2 of the table is "fabric containing more than 10 per cent by weight of synthetic fibre or yarn. "the names of the material set out in table 3 is "synthetic fibre and yarn". The petitioners have imported article witch falls within column No. 2 of the table of the notification. Shri Sawant submitted that it is not permissible under Section 3 (3) of the Customs tariff Act to levy additional duty on raw materials which equivalent to duty paid on raw material in respect of synthetic fibre and yarn. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act reads as follows :-

(2.) THE idea of levying additional duty under sub-section (3) of Section 3 is to counter-balance the advantage with an imported may gain and consequently toe challenge to the notification cannot be accepted. Shri Sawant could not contend that there is any case in which the additional duty recovered under sub-section (3) is not to counter-balance but something more was recovered from the importer than what the indigenous manufacturer would pay for the raw material in India. In our judgment, the challenge to the notification is without any merit and the petition must fail.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY, rule is discharged with costs.