UTKAL ASBESTOS LTD. Vs. BOARD OF TRUSTEES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The grievance of the petitioner is that the materials imported which are asbestos fibres have been charged under the category of hazardous goods on which double the scheduled rates are levied. At the initial stage normal rates were charged when realising the part of import duty. Subsequently, while realising the balance part, double the rate was charged for the part which was being released as well as the difference of double the rate on the part of the goods which were already released. However, the petitioner has paid under protest. Now, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not liable to pay double the rates.

(2.) His grounds of attack are that the amendment of Sec. 19 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1873 makes it clear that the goods falling under the category hazardous/dangerous is to be published by the Trustees from time to time. Similarly, the goods falling under the category III and IV in the list of dangerous/hazardous cargo is to be published by the Trustees from time to time. The expression 'published', according to Mr. Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner connotes publication through notification published in the Official Gazette. It relates to a fiscal matter. As such if there is any ambiguity or doubt it should go in favour of the petitioner. In the present case there is an absolute ambiguity since port trust is not able to show any such list to have been published. An internal communication is not meant for information of the public. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be treated to be a publication. The next ground he has raised is that unless there is a list published in the manner it can be published in terms of the decision and the law laid down, there cannot be any addition to the list, even though declared by the International Maritime Organisation, since it is not available to the public under which the liability can be ascertained. Therefore, the charge of double the rate should be set aside and the petitioner should be declared liable to pay at the normal rate.

(3.) Mr. Mazumdar, learned Counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that in view of the amendment of Sec. 19, even if there is no publication of a list, the inclusion of a goods as hazardous in the list of International Maritime Organisation (IMO), shall be deemed to be the publication for the purpose of Sec. 19. If an item is included in the list of IMO in that event the name can be treated as such even though there may not be any publication or it is not included in the list. According to him the decision cited by the petitioner does not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the petition should be dismissed.