PAWAN KUMAR GOYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question involved in the petition by itself is short and the field is further reduced by certain decisions of the Kerala High Court and by the learned Single Judge of this Court as also by the Supreme Court, on account of which nothing survives in the petition. This pertains to the import of defective M.S. Sheets, the import of which is for home consumption. The goods were imported some time in 1982 by the petitioner when the indent was placed on 20-12-1982 and bill of entry was noted on 12-4-1983. These goods are covered by the notification dated February 28,1982 under which the ceiling regarding the basic custom duty should not exceed more than 30% ad valorem. A subsequent Notification was issued including enhancement of certain items of duty which relates to auxiliary duty and C.V. duty. The main contention of the petitioner is to the effect that this enhanced duty will cover within its fold even these items of auxiliary duty and C.V. duty whereas it shall not be restricted only to the basic duty and under that argument it was suggested that even for these two items the petitioner would not be liable to pay more than 30%.

(2.) A similar point was raised in a case before the Kerala High Court reported in Raja Lakshmi Mills Ltd. & Ors. v . Union of India & Ors., 1984 16 ELT 47 when the said High Court negatived this contention making it clear that the effect of the subsequent Notification does not affect the foundation, namely that the exemption and the 30% is restricted only to the basic excise duty, but would not cover in any manner the other items like auxiliary duty and C.V. duty and which in turn would be that the importer would be liable to pay at the enhanced rate in respect of the auxiliary and C.V. duty though at the same time he may be entitled to have the ceiling of the maximum of 30% regarding the basic excise duty. This decision of the Kerala High Court has been confirmed by the Supreme Court when the Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The learned Single Judge of this Court (Bharucha, J.) in Writ Petition No. 103/83, decided on June 14,1989 relying on the decision of the Kerala High Court, accepted the said view and negatived the contention of the petitioner therein which is on the same pattern as is canvassed by Miss Nichani, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, notwithstanding the endeavours made by Miss Nichani to get over this situation, the argument will have to be negatived and that is apparent on the plain reading of both these decisions in the context of all these items.

(3.) Consequently, therefore, nothing survives in this petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.