IMPORTANT POINT
The benefit of exemption under Notification No.25/95 dated 16.3.1995, as amended, of the variable rate of duty chargeable in the Table under S.No.10 regarding printed Books (including cover for printed Books) is not available to the goods i.e. printed drawings, designs and plans under Foreign Transfer of Technology Agreement imported by the respondent.

Headnote:Customs Act, 1962-Exemption under notification No. 25/95 dated 16.3.95 as amended-S.No. 10-Printed books-Rate of duty Nil-S.No. 15-Plans, drawings and designs-Rate of duty 10% ad valorem -Respondent importing printed drawings, designs and plans under the Foreign Transfer of Technology Agreement-Commissioner of Customs levying 10% Ad valorem duty under S.No. 15-Tribunal holding it was duty free under S.No. 10-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 25/95 dated 16.3.1995, as amended, is available to the goods i.e. printed drawings, designs and plans under the Foreign Transfer of Technology Agreement imported by the respondent? (No)-Appeal allowed-Case law referred.
       Held : While there is some factual divergence as noticed above but the factum of the drawings etc. not forming part of a book within the exemption notification stands accepted in Scientific Engineers (supra) as would be evident from the emphasised portion in paragraph 13 noticed above. In this view of the matter, the aforesaid decision of this Court in Scientific Engineers (supra) does not lend any assistance to the assesses, rather runs counter to the respondent s contentions. As can be seen from one of the volumes produced before us, it contains documents in loose sheets merely put up in a folder. It has none of the characteristics of a book known in the common trade parlance. At any rate, the principal interest in the goods is related to transfer of technology to the assessee in the form of drawings, designs and plans for setting up plant to manufacture polyester, polyester filament yarn and polyester staple fiber. Thus viewed from any angle, the goods imported by the assessee are not covered by SI. No. 10 but are covered by Sl. No. 15 of the said exemption notification. (Para 14)
       In any event, one of the basic cannon of interpretation of statute is that the legislature intends to ascribe the ordinary common parlance and meaning to the words used therein. In the matter under consideration, the legislature has used the word printed books and clarified it by inclusion of covers - the intent thus seems to be rather obvious to mean books in ordinary sense and not any other meaning. The legislature has also included printed manuals and explained it by express words "including those in the loose leaf form with binder . Can the articles imported be termed to be printed manuals in loose leaf form with binder , unfortunately, the answer cannot be in the affirmative. It contains specifications in terms of a technology transfer agreement, it is not a collection of various articles in trade journals but a definite importation of technology transfer which obviously was not intended to mean by the user of the word manual . The word manual means and implies a small book for handy use and includes a reference book, a hand-book as also a text book (vide Concise Oxford Dictionary) and on attribution of the same meaning, the words used by the legislature cannot identify to be a product of technology transfer between two countries. Ordinary common parlance ought to be attributed for the expressions used by the legislature and on attribution thereof one cannot possibly come to a conclusion that the exemption notification ever aimed at extending the meaning to the extent as has been effected by the Tribunal. The decision of this Court in Scientific Engineering (supra) has been totally mis-read and misapplied in the contextual facts - Scientific Engineering (supra) on the contrary lends all possible credence to the contentions as propagated by the appellants and not the Respondents. The decisions of this Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Baroda v. Indian Petro Chemicals [1997 (92) E.L.T. 13 (S.C.)] and H.C.L. Limited v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi [2001 (130) E.L.T. 405 (S.C.)] do not in any way lend any support to the contentions of the respondent herein by reason of the special fact situation as above and in any event we are not concerned with two notifications, one of which confers benefit on to the assessee. Thus reliance thereon is totally misplaced in the facts of the matter under consideration. In the view as expressed above, we are not inclined to lend concurrence to the judgment of the Tribunal and as such these appeals succeed. The order of the Tribunal stands negated and that of the Commissioner, Customs restored. We thus answer the question noticed above in the negative. There will be no order however, as to costs. (Paras 17 and 18)

JUDGMENT

Banerjee, J.-In the light of the contentions raised and submissions made on behalf of either side, the following question arises for consideration and decision in these appeals :-

"Whether the benefit of exemption under Notification No.25/95 dated 16.3.1995, as amended, is available to the goods i.e. printed drawings, designs and plans under the Foreign Transfer of Technology Agreement imported by the respondent?"

2. On the factual score it appears that the respondent imported certain printed drawings, designs and plans under an agreement for transfer or technology for the purpose of setting up a plant to manufacture Polyester, Polyester Filament Yarn and Polyester Staple Fiber: whereas the assessee contended that the goods so imported are covered under Sl.No.10 of the Notification No. 25/95 cus dated 16.3.1995 having Nil rate of duty: The Revenue contended that the goods fall under Sl.No.15 of the notification attracting 10 per cent ad valorem. Before proceeding further with the matter the variable rate of duty chargeable as appears from the table in the Exemption Notification and in particular Sl.Nos.10 and 15 thereof are noted hereinbelow:

TABLE

S. Chapter Description of Rate Conditions No. or heading goods No.or sub- heading No.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)

.......................................

10. 49 Printed books (in- Nil -- cluding covers for printed books ) and printed manuals including those in loose-leaf form with binder.

............................

15. 49.06 Plans, drawings 10% ad -- and designs valorem 49.11

...............................

The factual score further depicts that by reason of the classification of the goods in question by the revenue authorities as falling under Chapter 49.11, the goods imported were valued at DM - 32,66,900.00 equivalent to Rs.7,50,61,438.00 for the purpose of duty thereon. The Commissioner of Customs however took the view that by reason of non-payment of duty as presented in the Table as above, the goods are liable to be confiscated and since the same were not available for such confiscation, he imposed penalty of Rs.10 lakhs on the importer under Section 112 of the Customs Act and further penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs each on three of the Directors of the Company being the importer herein and hence the appeal before the Tribunal (CEGAT). The Tribunal however, on a detailed judgment came to the conclusion that the materials imported by the appellant are books coming under Tariff item 49.01 and thus coming within the ambit of Sl. No. 10 of the Exemption Notification by reason wherefor question of levy or payment of any duty for the same would not arise as for the articles so imported rate of duty was Nil in terms of the Exemption Notification. The order of the Commissioner of Customs thus stood reversed in its entirety including that of the penalties imposed and hence the appeal by way of a special leave petition by Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi and the subsequent grant of leave by this Court.

3. Incidentally, in view of certain

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 1191

Cases Referred (3)