SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1994 Supreme(SC) 967

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. M. SAHAI AND N. P. SINGH, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 4342 of 1986
Decided on 29-9-1994.
M/s. Moorco (India) Ltd., Madras
Versus
Collector of Customs, Madras.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. S. Vaidyanathan, Sr. Advocate and Mr. S. R. Setia, Advocate with him, for Appellant; Mr. Joseph Valla Pally, Sr. Advocate, Mr. G. Prakash and Mr. V. K. Verma, Advocates with him for Respondent.

Headnote:

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - Section 5 - Arms Act - Section 25 - Section 19 - Arms And Ammunition - No Licence For Arms – Appeal Against Conviction - Secret information received by Border Security Force, a naka was organised by Assistant Commandant (PW1). - Assistant Commandant (PW2) and one Mr. R. S. Bhuller, Deputy Commandant of 46th Btn. B.S.F., in area of Kurli Sahib - Appellant along with Ravinder Yadav were spotted and stopped - Each had a brief case - They were searched - From briefcase of appellant 12 pistols, 24 magazines and 346 cartridges besides some other articles were recovered - Appellant had no licence for arms and ammunition - Articles were seized and taken into possession, after preparing recovery memo - Ruqa was sent to police station and formal FIR was registered - Assistant Commandant PW 1 handed over appellant and his companion to A.S.I. PW3 - B.S.F. officials also handed over seized material including 12 pistols, 24 magazines and 346 cartridges alongwith currency notes and other articles to PW3, A.S.I. which were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PO, attested by, Assistant Commandant and Constable - Seized arms and ammunition were deposited by A.S.I. PW3 at Malkhana with MHC and thereafter got tested from Armour Paramjit Singh - Appellant was tried by Designated Court and convicted – Held, Interest of justice would be met if while maintaining conviction of appellant for offences under Section 5 of TADA and Section 25 of Arms Act, substantive sentence of imprisonment for offence under Section 5 of TADA is reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment instead of seven years rigorous imprisonment while maintaining sentence of 5 years rigorous imprisonment for offence – Court make an order accordingly - Sentence of fine and imprisonment in lieu thereof for both offences is however set aside – Appeal Disposed Of.

JUDGMENT

An interesting question of law relating to applicability of rules of interpretation appended to the Schedule of Customs Act arises for consideration in this appeal.

2. The appellant is a manufacturer of, "volumetric displacement type flow meter" (for short the meter). It imported goods described as "components and accessories of volumetric displacement type flow meter" for use in the end product. The flow meter manufactured by the appellant consists of the following devices:-

(a) a device for measuring the variable to be controlled.

(b) control device which compares the measured value with the desired value and actuates the starting, stopping (or) operating device.

(c) a starting, stopping (or) operating device.

(d) action device which carries out orders received either directly (or) through amplifying relays from device (C).

3. In the Bill of Lading the item imported is described as Industrial Metric Equipment (component and accessory of Volumetric Type Flow Meter). In the Purchase Order from Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. the item manufactured by the appellant is described as under :

"To manufacture, test, pack and supply the flow meters with accessories and spares as under :

Double case type flow meters including accessories (as per details given in the attached Continuation Sheet)."

In the Purchase Order from Indian Oil Corporation Limited the item has been described as under :

"Model SD 30 75mm dia (3") single case rotary vane positive displacement meter with large numeral counter, the rate of flow indicator, strainer-cum-air eliminator as per specification given below......"

From all this material it appears what was imported by the appellant was component for being used in the flow meter. It is so understood in the commercial circle. Even the Assistant Collector held that the meter produced by the appellant was capable of showing the rate of flow. But according to him since it was used for measuring volume also, therefore, it was liable to be classified under the Tarrif Heading 90.26. For this reliance was placed on clause (c) of the General Rules for Interpretation of the First Schedule - Import Tarriff of the Customs Act. The finding recorded by the Assistant Collector has not been disturbed by the Collector (Appeals) or by the Tribunal. The relevant Tariff Items read as under :-

"90.24 Instruments and apparatus for measuring, checking or automatically controlling the flow, depth, pressure or other variable of liquids or gases or for automatically controlling temperature (for example, pressure gauges, thermostats, level gauges, flow meters, heat meters, automatic over-draught regulators), not being articles falling within Heading No. 90.14:

(1) Not elsewhere specified 40%

(2) Thermostats and Humidistats 60%

90.26 Gas, liquid and electricity supply or production meter, calibrating meters therefor. 60%

90.29 Parts or accessories suitable for use solely or principally with one or more of the articles falling within Heading Nos. 90.23, 90.24, 90.26, 90.27 or 90.28."

Flow meters are specifically covered in Tariff Heading 90.24. Specific excludes general, is the well-known principle. Heading 90.29 permits levy on parts or accessories which are used solely in the manufacture of one or more of the articles falling within Heading 90.24. The Assistant Collector held that the accessories imported by the appellant were used solely for the meter manufactured by the appellant. Therefore, if the meter manufactured by the appellant can be said to satisfy the description of Tariff Heading 90.24 then by virtue of Tariff Heading 90.29 the rate of duty on the components imported by the appellant could be levied as in Tariff Heading 90.24. On the finding recorded by the Assistant Collector the end product manufactured by the appellant being specifically provided for by 90.24 the accessory imported by the appellant which was solely used for manufacture of it was liable to be classified on the same rate as the item in which it was used, namely, f








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top