COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Vs. HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Controversy relates to import of pitch (tar) by the respondent No. 1 from abroad. According to the said respondent, since pitch was itemized as "2708" under sub-heading 11 and 19 they imported the consignments under sub-heading 11 for a long time. In 1988 the authority objected as according to them the bill of entry was not properly filled up as the subject consignment should be under sub-heading 19 and not under sub-heading 11. Correspondence were exchanged between the Customs Authority and the said respondent with regard to the nature of production of the tar so imported by the said respondent. The said respondent also produced materials with regard to the manufacturing process to some extent. They, however, could not get such process in detail as the manufacturer refused to divulge the same. The Customs Authority was not satisfied with the explanation given by the importer that gave rise to the present litigation.

(2.) The learned Single Judge by His Lordship's judgment and order dated September 7, 1994 disposed of the writ petition.

(3.) Before His Lordship it was contended on behalf of the said respondent that since the subject consignment could be cleared under sub-heading 11, 19 or 20 it was for the Customs Authority to show that it was not covered under sub-heading 11. The said respondent on the basis of declaration of the manufacturer proceeded to import the consignment under sub-heading 11. If the authority was dissatisfied they must show the reason for dissatisfaction. They were to prove that it was not under sub-heading 11. On the basis of the surmise and conjecture the authority was not entitled to issue the show-cause notice and the same should be quashed and set aside.