Back
2001 Supreme(SC) 1857
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.N. KIRPAL, SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.
M/s. APS Star Industries Ltd. - Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2142 of 1999. with Civil Appeal No. 3542 of 2000
Decided on : 09-08-2001
The court's role is limited to overseeing that subordinate Tribunals act within the law and will not upset their finding of fact if all relevant factors have been considered and a bonafide conclusion has been reached.
Headnote:
Exemption Notification 26/88 - Applicability of Exemption Notification 26/88 to imported goods - The court upheld the decision of the customs authorities and the Tribunal that the imported machines did not fall under the description in the Exemption Notification No. 26/88, and therefore, the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the said notification.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant imported two NOMOCO Centreless Grinding Machines from West Germany and claimed the benefit of Exemption Notification 26/88. The customs authorities and the Tribunal concluded that the machines did not fall under the description in the notification and denied the benefit to the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the decision of the customs authorities and the Tribunal, stating that if the authorities have considered all relevant factors and arrived at a bonafide conclusion, it is not within the jurisdiction of the court to upset that finding of fact. The court found no violation of natural justice and dismissed the appeals.
Issues: Applicability of Exemption Notification 26/88 to imported goods
Ratio Decidendi: The court's role is to oversee that subordinate Tribunals act within the law. If the authorities have considered all relevant factors and arrived at a bonafide conclusion, the court will not upset that finding of fact.
Final Decision: The appeals are dismissed, and no order as to costs is made.
ORDER :
1. The only question involved in these cases relates to the applicability of the Exemption Notification 26/88 which, according to the appellant, is applicable in regard to the imports made by it.
2. The appellant had imported two NOMOCO Centreless Grinding Machines from West Germany and had sought clearance of the goods as grinding machines and claimed benefit of the said notification. According to the appellant, the description of the goods fell under item No. 2 of the said Notification No. 26/88 which item reads as follows :
"Outer diameter centreless grinder for spherical or cylindrical or taper or needle or rollers and/or bearing races."
3. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the decision of the Assistant Collector given after examining the relevant drawings to the effect that the machines in question did not fall in that category under Notification No. 26/88 is correct and observed that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of the said notification. Hence, these appeals. This Court in Aditya Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, 1988 (4) SCC 315 and in Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Swastic Woollens (P) Ltd. and Others, 1988 (Supp.) SCC 796, has held that an appeal provided under Section 130-E of the Customs Act is essentially to enable this Court to oversee that the subordinate Tribunals act within the law. If the Tribunal and the authorities subordinate to it have considered all relevant factors and then come to a bonafide conclusion and pass a speaking order with regard to the nature of the goods imported and the entry under which the same fall, then it would not be within the jurisdiction of this Court to upset that finding of fact. 4. In the present case, the machines imported were examined and the finding of fact arrived at by the customs authorities and accepted by the Tribunal was that the machines in question were not entitled to the benefit of the Exemption Notification No. 26/88 as they did not answer the description contained in item No. 2 therein. We are not satisfied that any principles of natural justice were in any way violated or that the authorities concerned did not act bonafide. For the aforesaid reasons, these appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
