http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11

PETITIONER:

GARDEN SILK MILLS LTD. & ANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/09/1999

BENCH:

R.P.Sethi, B.N.Kripal, A.P.Misra

JUDGMENT:

KIRPAL,J.

The main question which arises in all these appeals by

special leave is whether while assessing customs duty

payable in respect of imported goods, the customs

authorities can add/include landing charges in arriving at

the value of those goods. The facts which are relevant for

deciding the issue are similar. For the sake of convenience

we will refer to the facts in the case of Garden Silk Mills

Limited in greater detail.

The appellants in these appeals had imported polyester

yarn from abroad. The transactions for sale and purchase

between the foreign supplier and the appellant company were

in the nature of CIF contracts i.e. price included costs,

insurance and freight charges. These contracts normally

provide CIF price for the port of discharge. It is not in

dispute that under a CIF contract the price which was paid

included not only the cost of the goods but also the

insurance and freight charges.

The customs authorities, in determining the value of

the goods for the purpose of ascertaining the amount of duty

payable, added to the CIF price the landing charges which

were paid to the Port Trust Authorities. On the payment of

the customs duty being made, the goods were cleared and used

by the appellants.

The appellant company then filed writ petitions in the

High Court of Gujarat, inter alia, contending that the

landing charges which were paid at the rate ¾% of the CIF

value of goods had been wrongly added while arriving at the

assessable value of those goods and, therefore, the High

Court should direct a refund of Rs. 69030.60 which was the

amount of duty relatable to the landing charges. The High

Court came to the conclusion that the Customs Authorities

had rightly added the landing charges to the CIF value of

the goods for the purpose of determining the customs duty

and, therefore, no refund was due to the appellants. Hence,

these appeals by special leave.

Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter

referred to as the Act) provides for the levy of duty of

customs on the goods imported into or exported from India at

such rates as may be specified under the Customs Tariffs

Act, 1975. Prior to its amendment in 1988, Section 14 of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11

the Act read as follows:

14. Valuation of goods for purposes of assessment.

(1) For the purposes of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (51

of 1975), or any other law for the time being in force

whereunder a duty of customs is chargeable on any goods by

reference to their value, the value of such goods shall be

deemed to be:

(a) the price at which such or like goods are

ordinarily sold, or offered for sale, for delivery at the

time and place of importation or exportation, as the case

may be, in the course of international trade, where the

seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of

each other and the price is the sole consideration for the

sale or offer for sale.

Provided that such price shall be calculated with

reference to the rate of exchange as in force on the date of

which a bill of entry is presented under Section 46, or a

shipping bill or bill of export, as the case may be, is

presented under Section 50.

(b) Where such price is not ascertainable, the nearest

ascertainable equivalent thereof determined in accordance

with the rules made in this behalf.

By an amendment in 1988, a new provision sub-section

(1A) has been incorporated in Section 14, after deleting

clause (b) of sub-section 1. The new sub-section (1A)

stipulates that subject to the provisions of sub-section 1,

the price referred to in that sub-section in respect of

imported goods shall be determined in accordance with the

rules made in this behalf. Pursuant thereto Customs

Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules

1988 have been framed. Post 1988, therefore, the value of

the imported goods has to be determined in accordance with

the rules which, according to the respondents, are based on

the GATT Valuation Code (also called Article VII of the

General Agreement on Tariff and Trade) which was adopted in

1979. With these Rules, however, we are not concerned in

the present case because all the goods were imported prior

to the incorporation of sub-section (1A) of Section 14 of

the Act.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that

under Section 12 of the Act the duty was leviable on goods

imported into India and the value of the goods must be fixed

at the time and place of importation. In the case of C.I.F.

contracts, it was contended that the contracts reflect the

price for sale in the course of international trade and for

delivery at the time and place of importation, which, in the

case of appellants, was Bombay. The expressions time and

the place of importation must be understood in an ordinary

sense. In commercial world and in international trade, time

and place of importation could only mean (a) the date of

import and (b) the place of import i.e. port of import. It

was submitted that place of importation could not mean

wharf, dock, port, quays or the customs barrier. Similarly

the expression delivery, it was contended, had to be

construed in ordinary sense which, in the case of C.I.F.

contracts, would mean the port of discharge i.e. Bombay and

not the wharf at the port of Bombay. According to the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11

appellants the words for delivery at the time and place of

importation occurring in Section 14 of the Act could only

mean delivery on the date and the port of discharge and the

price must, therefore, be an ordinarily available price at

about the same time and place of discharge. It could not be

a price anterior or posterior to the point of time when the

goods arrived and, therefore, landing charges which are

levied after the delivery of the goods could not be imposed.

Our attention was also invited to Sections 2(23) and 2(27)

of the Act which read as follows:

2(23) import with its grammatical variations and

cognate expressions, means into India from a place outside

India;

2(27) India includes the territorial waters of

India.

A submission was sought to be raised that reading

Section 12 of the Act with Sections 2(23) and 2(27), the

import of goods into India would be completed when they

enter the territorial waters of India and it is the value at

that point of time which alone can be taken into

consideration for the purposes of assessing the customs

duty. If this be so the question of there being any

addition of landing charges to the C.I.F. value can under

no circumstances arise because landing charges are levied in

relation to goods after they have been off-loaded from the

ship.

On a careful analysis it is evident that the

principles of valuation incorporated in Section 14(1) (a) of

the Act therein show that:

a) the price is a deemed price; b) at which such or

like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale; c) for

delivery at the time and the place of importation or

exportation; d) in the course of international trade; e)

where the seller and the buyer have no interest in the

business of each other and f) the price is the sole

consideration for the sale or offer for sale.

This Section clearly indicates that it is not the

price stated in the CIF contract which alone is to be

accepted as being the value of such goods for the purpose of

Section 14 of the Act. The said Section requires

determination of the value of the imported goods. The

appellants are right in contending that this is a deeming

provision. The value of such goods is to be deemed to be

the price at which such goods are ordinarily sold, or

offered for sale, for delivery at the time and place of

importation in the course of international trade, where the

seller and the buyer have no interest in the business of

each other and the price is the sole consideration for the

sale or offer for sale. The price of the imported goods, in

other words, has to be determined in respect of import of

those goods for delivery at the time and place of

importation. It appears to us that the word delivery must

necessarily mean the point of time when the goods can be

physically delivered to the importer. In other words,

delivery and discharge are not synonymous. As we shall

presently see, merely by the shipper discharging the goods

at the port of import does not ipso facto give the importer

a right to take the delivery thereof.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11

Chapter VI of the Act contains the provisions relating

to conveyances carrying imported or exported goods. Chapter

VII of the Act contains provisions regarding the clearance

of imported goods and export goods. Reading the provisions

contained in the said chapters, it becomes apparent that all

goods carried by vessel or aircraft entering from any place

outside India has to land the goods at a customs port or

customs airport and that too with the permission of the

Customs Officer (Section 29). The import manifest of the

vessel is required to be delivered to the Customs Officer in

terms of Section 30. Unloading of imported goods can take

place only after the import manifest has been delivered and

an order permitting entry inwards of the vessel has been

given by the Customs Officer in terms of Section 31.

Section 32 provides that un- loading of only those goods is

permitted as are mentioned in import manifest. The goods

are to be un-loaded as per Section 33 only at the place

which is approved for that purpose and the same cannot be

un- loaded except under the supervision of the Customs

Officer (Section 34).

All imported goods unloaded in a customs area are

required to remain under the customs authorities until they

are cleared for home consumption or are warehoused or are

transshipped (Section 45). The goods can be cleared by the

importer only after, as provided by Section 46, the importer

files a bill of entry for home consumption or warehousing

pursuant to which clearance of goods is granted under

Section 47 by the Customs Officer. This clearance is given

after the officer is, inter alia, satisfied that the

importer has paid the import duty assessed on the imported

goods.

The aforesaid provisions of the Act , therefore,

clearly show that after the imported goods are discharged

from the vessel at the wharf the importer cannot immediately

take delivery thereof. The imported goods remain in the

custody of the Port Trust Authorities till they are, inter

alia, cleared for home consumption. This being the position

the goods cannot be cleared and delivery taken without their

being valued and assessed and, thereafter, duty being paid.

Section 14 of the Act provides that the value of the goods

shall be deemed to be the price of the goods for the

delivery at the time and place of importation in the course

of international trade. The value has to be determined with

relation to the time when physical delivery to the importer

can take place. Physical delivery can take place only after

the bill of entry, inter alia, for home consumption is filed

and it is the value at that point of time which would be

relevant. It is evident that there normally will be some

lapse of time between the time when the shipper discharges

the goods and the time when the bill of entry is filed. The

landing charges, which are imposed at or after the time of

the discharge of the goods and prior to the clearance being

granted under Section 47 of the Act, necessarily have to be

an element which have to be taken into account in

determining the value thereof for the purpose of assessing

the customs duty which would be chargeable.

Section 14 is a deeming provision. The legislative

intent is clear that the actual price of the imported goods,

namely the landing cost, cannot alone be regarded as the

value for the purpose of calculating the duty. If the

submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11

correct namely that the C.I.F. price represents the value

of the imported goods, then the Section 14 would have been

differently worded. It could, for instance, have easily

been stated that the value of the imported goods would be

the transaction value of the goods. The language of Section

14 clearly indicates that though the transaction value may

be a relevant consideration, the value for the purpose of

Customs duty will have to be determined by the Customs

Authorities which value can be more, and at times even less,

than what is indicated in the documents of purchase or sale.

The question as to whether the import is completed

when the goods entered the territorial waters and it is the

value at that point of time which is to be taken into

consideration is no longer res integra. This contention was

raised in Union of India Vs. Apar Industires Limited, 1999

(5) J.T. 160. In that case the day when the goods entered

the territorial waters, the rate of duty was nil but when

they were removed from the warehouse, the duty had become

leviable. The contention which was sought to be raised was

that what is material is the day when the goods had entered

the territorial waters because by virtue of Section 2(23)

read with Section 2(27) the import into India had taken

place when the goods entered the territorial waters.

Following the decision of this Court in Bharat Surfactants

(M/s) (Private) Ltd. and Another Vs. Union of India and

Another, 1989(4) SCC 21 and Dhiraj Lal H. Vohra and Others

Vs. Union of India and Others, 1993 (Supp. 3) SCC 453,

this Court came to the conclusion in Apars Private Limited

case that the duty has to be paid with reference to the

relevant date as mentioned in Section 15 of the Act.

It was further submitted that in the case of Apars

Private Limited this Court was concerned with Sections 14

and 15 but here we have to construe the word imported

occurring in Section 12 and this can only mean that the

moment goods have entered the territorial waters, the import

is complete. We do not agree with the submission. This

Court in its opinion in Re. The Bill to Amend Section 20 of

the Sea Customs Act, 1878 and Section 3 of the Central

Excises and Salt Act, 1944, 1964 (3) SCR 787 at page 823

observed as follows:

Truly speaking, the imposition of an import duty, by

and large, results in a condition which must be fulfilled

before the goods can be brought inside the customs barriers

i.e. before they form part of the mass of goods within the

country.

It would appear to us that the import of goods into

India would commence when the same cross into the

territorial waters but continues and is completed when the

goods become part of the mass of goods within the country;

the taxable event being reached at the time when the goods

reach the customs barriers and the bill of entry for home

consumption is filed.

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the

appellants that in actual effect in the case of CIF

contracts like the present, it is the shipper who pays the

landing charges and the Indian importer does not incur these

expenses in addition to what he has paid on the basis of the

CIF contract. In other words the submission was that the

landing charges are already included in the CIF value of the

goods as they form part of the freight paid to the steamer

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11

agent and the said charges are recovered by the Port Trust

authorities directly from the steamer agents and, therefore,

a second inclusion of such landing charges by loading a flat

percentage of the CIF value is uncalled for. In this

connection, reliance was placed on clause 15 of the terms

and conditions of a sample of a Bill of Lading which deals

with loading, discharge and delivery and reads as under:

any expenses, costs, dues and other charges which

incur before loading and after discharge of the goods shall

be borne by the Merchant.

Learned Additional Solicitor General is correct in

submitting that the aforesaid clause 15 does not in any way

indicate that the CIF value includes therein the charges

levied by the Port Trust Authorities after the discharge of

the goods. It is difficult to imagine that at the time when

the contract is entered into, and the CIF price is fixed, as

to how the parties could envisage as to what the port

charges at the destination are likely to be. It does appear

that any expense which is incurred with regard to the

loading or un-loading of the goods to and from the ship

would be included in the CIF price paid by the importer.

But there is nothing on record to show that in actual effect

landing charges were collected by the Port Trust Authorities

from the shipper. No document in this regard showing the

discharge of such a liability by the shipper to the Port

Trust Authorities has been produced. There can be little

doubt that if the importer is able to establish that the

obligation to pay the landing charges was on the seller or

by the shipping agent, and not by the buyer, and the said

charges have infact been paid to the Port Trust Authorities

not by or on behalf of the importer, then the importer can

claim that the landing charges should not once again be

added to the price because in such an event, where payment

is made of landing charges by the seller or the shipper, the

CIF price must be regarded as including the said landing

charges. There is however, in these cases, no factual basis

for contending that the landing charges were included in the

CIF price and, consequently the said obligation was

discharged not by the importer or by its agent but by the

seller or the shipper.

It is also submitted on behalf of the appellants that

onus of proving that the transaction value does not

represent the value for the purposes of Section 14 of the

Act and that it has to be loaded with any other elements

such as landing charges, is on the Department. We are

unable to agree with the submission. The value at which the

goods are to be assessed is indicated by the importer when

he makes a declaration while submitting a bill of entry

under Section 46 of the Act. Once, we come to the

conclusion that the landing charges would be included in the

determining of the value of the goods imported then the onus

has to be on the importer to show that the price indicated

in the CIF contract includes therein this element of landing

charges. If such an element is included in the CIF

contract, that would be within the knowledge of the importer

and the Department cannot be asked to prove the negative,

namely that the CIF contract does not include therein the

element of landing charges.

It was contended that legal fictions are created only

for some definite purposes and here the purpose is to take

the transaction value in international trade as the basis

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11

for valuation. Therefore, whichever view is taken of

Section 14(1) (a) of the Act, it should be limited to the

purpose the legislation makers had in view when they

incorporated it. It was further submitted that in the

present case the fiction was clearly limited to the

parameters provided in Section 14(1)(a) (ordinary price in

international trade at the time and place of importation)

and cannot be extended further to be settled with elements

like landing charges. Once that is done, the whole purpose

of legal fiction stands defeated and, therefore, landing

charges cannot form part of the value of goods for

assessment.

We do not agree with the aforesaid submission because

what has to be arrived at is a deemed price in the manner

indicated in the said Section. In determining this deemed

price in international trade the element of port charges

which have to be borne by the importer, in addition to the

CIF value, before the goods can be cleared for human

consumption must necessarily form a part or an element of

the value. The said Section does not accept as final the

price fixed by the purchaser and the seller in the course of

international trade as reflected in the CIF contract but it

requires determination of value by the customs authorities

in the manner indicated therein. What has to be seen is the

value or cost of the imported articles at the time of

importation i.e. at the time when they reach the customs

barrier. Landing charges which have to be paid to the Port

Trust must, therefore, be taken into consideration while

determining the value of the imported goods for the purpose

of assessment of duty. It is only if the importer

establishes that the obligation to pay the landing charges

is on the seller and not on the importer and that the seller

or his agent has, in fact, paid the said landing charges to

the Port Trust Authorities, that the importer can claim that

the landing charges should not be again added to the price.

In none of the cases before us has it been found by any fact

finding authority, even in cases of CIF contracts, that the

Port Trust Authorities did receive the landing charges from

the shipper or the foreign seller and that the said charges

were included in the CIF contract.

We notice that various High Courts in India since 1982

have held that for the purpose of arriving at the value at

which goods are delivered to the buyer at the time and place

of importation into India, the concept of value as

understood in Section 14 of the Act necessarily requires the

landing charges to be included in the value. These

decisions are:

a) 1982(10) ELT 203 (Gujarat High Court) Prabhat

Cotton and Silk Mills Vs. Union of India judgment dated

9.3.1982. b) 1983(12) ELT 258 (Delhi High Court) Super

Traders and Anr. Vs. Union of India and Others, judgment

dated 23.9.1982, followed by another judgment in 1983(12)

ELT 661 (Delhi High Court) in Bhartiya Plastic Udyog Vs.

Union of India, judgment dated 7.1.1983. c) 1984(18) ELT

235 (Punjab and Haryana High Court) Oswal Woolen Mills Ltd.

Vs. Union of India, judgment dated 22.2.1983. d) 1985(35)

ELT 280 (Calcutta High Court) Govind Ram Agarwal Vs.

Collector of Customs, Calcutta, judgment dated 21.1.1985.

e) 1986(24) ELT 456 (Karnataka High Court) B.S. Kamath &

Co. Vs. Union of India, judgment dated 12.3.1986. f)

1987(32) ELT 2263 (Bombay High Court) Ashok Traders vs.

Union of India, judgment dated 9.10.1987 followed by another

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11

judgment in 1992 (57) ELT 221 (Bombay High Court) in Ceat

Tyres Vs. Union of India. g) 1988 (37) ELT 327 (Andhra

Pradesh High Court) Barium Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of

India, judgment dated 4.12.1987. h) 1994(69) ELT 4 (Madras

High Court) Shri Ram Fibres Ltd. Vs. Union of India,

judgment dated 5.8.1993.

In our opinion these decisions have correctly

interpreted the relevant provisions of the Customs Act and

the submissions on behalf of appellants cannot be accepted.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in

the contentions of the appellants and, in our opinion,

landing charges were rightly taken into consideration in

determining the assessable value of the imported goods for

the purposes of Section 14(1)(a) of the Act. There being no

other point for consideration, Civil Appeal Nos. 2976 of

1991 and 2674 of 1982 are accordingly dismissed.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8459-60, 8864, 8865, 8866, 11897 OF

1983 AND 7675 OF 1996

The only contention raised in these appeals by Mr. J.

Vellapally, Sr. Advocate related to the addition of the

landing charges to the CIF value for the purpose of

determining the assessable value under Section 14(1)(a) of

the Act. The emphasis of the learned counsel was that in

the case of CIF contract the freight which is paid included

the landing cost and, therefore, the same cannot be added

once again to the CIF value.

As we have already indicated earlier, it is a question

of fact whether landing cost was included in the freight

which was paid by the importer in the case of a CIF

contract. There is nothing on record to indicate that in

actual effect the landing cost was paid to the Post Trust

Authorities by the shipper or the seller or their agents out

of the freight which had been paid by the importer as a part

of CIF price. Even if landing and delivery is the

responsibility of shipper, it appears to us that the landing

charges are demanded after the goods have been discharged

from the vessel and it is not correct to state that the

discharge of the goods from the vessel is synonymous with

the landing and delivery of the goods to the buyer. These

appeals are also, accordingly, dismissed.

C.A. NOS. 7352 OF 1983 AND 4216-26 OF 1995

The only question, in these appeals, related to

landing charges. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do

not find any merit in this contention and the appeals are,

accordingly, dismissed.

C.A. NOS. 3070-75 OF 1989

Addition of landing charges is the only question

raised in these appeals. For the reasons stated

hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this submission

and, therefore, these appeals are dismissed.

WRIT PETITION NOS. 7221-23 AND 7295 OF 1982

The only contention raised in these petitions pertains

to the addition of landing charges. For the reasons stated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11

hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this submission

and, therefore, these petitions are dismissed.

WRIT PETITION © NOS. 7224, 7296 OF 1982 AND 40 OF

1983

The only contention raised in these petitions pertains

to the addition of landing charges. For the reasons stated

hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this submission

and, accordingly, these petitions are dismissed.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2902 OF 1991

The only contention raised in this appeal pertains to

the levy and addition of landing charges. For the reasons

stated hereinabove, we do not find any merit in this

submission and, therefore, this appeal is dismissed.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 1999 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE

PETITION © NO. 4120 OF 1989

Special leave granted. Three contentions were urged

in this appeal. The first was whether landing charges can

be included for determining the assessable value of imported

goods under Section 14 of the Act. In view of the foregoing

discussion, it is clear that the charges paid to the Port

Trust Authorities prior to the clearance of goods would be

included in determining the assessable value and, therefore,

this contention is rejected.

The second contention was whether Section 3(a) of the

Customs Tariff Act is ultra virus of Article 14 of the

Constitution of India and/or whether the customs authorities

are correct in charging additional duty on the sum total of

assessable value, basic customs duty and auxiliary duty,

instead of only on additional duty. In the case of Jain

Brothers Vs. Union of India, 1999(112) E.L.T. 5 (S.C.), a

similar contention was not accepted and it was held that the

said provision is valid.

The third contention was that the appellant had

imported consignment of HDPE Blow moulding Grade from M/s.

Inter Trade, Yugoslavia. The total invoice price of the

consignment was US $ 830 per M.T. The said invoice price

also included in it the cost of packing materials. The cost

of packing materials was US $ 40 per M.T. The appellant

claimed benefit of exemption from customs duty on the value

of packages in terms of Notification No. 184/76-Cus; dated

2.8.76.

The High Court dis-allowed the aforesaid benefit on

the ground that the effect of aforesaid notification was not

to exclude the value of packages from the total assessable

value of the imported goods (which includes the value of the

packages as the invoice value includes the value of the

packages) but to exempt the levy of duty on the packages

separately, since in law these are two separate imposts one

on the value of the contents (which is the invoice value and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11

which includes the value of packages) at the rate applicable

to the contents and the other on the value of the package

itself. This question now stands concluded with the

judgment of this court in the case of Hind Plastics Vs.

Collector of Customs [1994 (71) ELT 325] wherein this very

notification had been construed and it was held that this

notification as well as Section 14 did not contemplate

deduction of value of packages from the invoice value. This

contention of the appellant cannot, therefore, be accepted.

For the aforesaid reasons this appeal is accordingly

dismissed.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3381 OF 1991

Three contentions were raised. The first was whether

landing charges could be included for determining the

assessable value of imported goods under Section 14 of the

Act. In view of the foregoing discussion, this contention

of the appellants is rejected.

The second contention related to the validity of

Section 3(a) of the Customs Tariff Act. In view of the

decision of this Court in Jain Brothers case, this issue has

been decided against the appellants.

The third contention related to the claim for

exemption by virtue of Notification No. 184/76-Cus dated

2.8.1976 of customs duty and packing material. In view of

the decision of this Court in Hind Plastics case, this

submission of the appellants can also be not accepted. This

appeal is accordingly dismissed.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5974 OF 1994

In the written submissions filed on behalf of the

appellants it was stated that the appellants had filed a

declaration under the Kar Vivadh Samadhan cheme, 1998. The

Assistant Commissioner, Kar Vivadh Samadhan Scheme, Central

Excise, Mumbai had conveyed to the appellants that the

declaration is not based on the show cause notice or demand

notice prior to 31st March, 1998 and, therefore, the said

declaration was not tenable and was rejected. This letter

of March, 1999 has been challenged in the Writ Petition No.

2528 of 1999 in the Bombay High Court and the same is

pending in the High Court. In the written submissions it

was stated that either this appeal being C.A. No. 5974 of

1994 be kept pending or the same be heard after the disposal

of Writ Petition No. 2528 of 1999 by the Bombay High Court

or in the alternative, this Civil Appeal No. 5974 of 1994

may be allowed to be withdrawn. In our opinion, the latter

course is a preferable one and, therefore, Civil Appeal No.

5974 of 1994 is dismissed as withdrawn in view of the

pendency of the Writ Petition No. 2528 of 1999 before the

Bombay High Court.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5014 OF 1989

Three contentions were raised in this appeal. The

first was whether the countervailing duty at the rate of 42%

could be levied on the goods viz., Polyvinyl Alcohol

imported by the appellant or whether the appellant was

entitled to benefit of the exemption notification imposing a

duty of 10% as the Polyvinyl Alcohol imported is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11

manufactured only from Vinyl Acetate Monomer.

This issue has to be decided against the appellant in

view of the decision of this Court in M/s. Motiram Tolaram

and Anr. Etc. etc. Vs. The Union of India and Anr.

[1999(4) Scale 666].

The second contention related to the landing charges

and the said contention cannot be accepted in view of our

discussion hereinabove.

The third contention related to value of packing

charges and the grant of benefit of exemption notification.

The same has to be rejected In view of the decision of this

Court in Hind Plastics case (supra). This appeal is,

accordingly, dismissed.

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5983/83, 786/89, 788-90 OF 1989

The contentions, which were raised in these appeals

are a) vires of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act; (b)

demand of duty by including landing charges, © adding on of

customs duty for the purposes of assessing the

countervailing duty and (d) exemption of duty on the packing

material under Notification No. 184/76-Cus. Dated

2.8.1976.

For the reasons stated hereinabove none of these

contentions can be accepted and the appeals are,

consequently dismissed.

C.A. NOS. 3163/91, 8194/95 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO. /99

ARISING OUT OF S.L.P.© 9814 OF 1990

Leave granted in S.L.P. © No. 9814 of 1990. In view

of the discussion hereinabove, the contentions raised in the

above-said appeals cannot be accepted and the appeals are,

consequently dismissed.

Civil Appeal No.4082 of 1995

The only contention raised by the appellant before the

High Court related to the packing charges. For the reasons

stated hereinabove that contention must fail here also. As

no other ground was urged before the High Court the question

of the appellant being allowed to raise any additional

ground does not arise. The appeal is dismissed.

CONCLUSION

While Civil Appeal No. 5974 of 1994 is dismissed as

withdrawn, the other appeals and petitions are dismissed

with costs.