The court affirmed the validity of key sections of the Customs Tariff Act, clarified the inclusion of landing charges in customs duty, and directed the examination of the claim for exemption on packages and containers.

K. S. Puttaswamy, J.

( 1 ) ON a reference made by Hakeem, J. these cases were posted before us for disposal.

( 2 ) AS common questions of law arise for determination in these cases, we propose to dispose of them by a common order.

( 3 ) THE petitioners are manufacturers of polythene products, for the manufacture of which they import a base material called High Density Polyethylene Moulding Powder (HDPM) from united States of America, Brazil, Korea and other foreign countries. The material bought by the petitioners from their foreign sellers is transported by ocean going ships under Cost, Insurance, freight (CIF) contracts and are delivered at one or the other sea port of the country. From the concerned seaport, evidently at the request of the petitioners the HDPM was further transported by rail or road to Bangalore at which place the same was kept at the bonded warehouse of the customs department of Government of India to ensure payment of import duty under the customs Act of 1962 (Central Act No. 52 of 1962) (the Customs Act ). As to the payment of import duty payable on such HDPM, the petitioners claim that the demands made or to be made by the revenue were unauthorised in whole or part. But, when the petitioners found, that at least many of them, if not all, were in conformity with the Customs Act and the subsidiary provisions made thereunder, they have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the provisions themselves and the consequent action of the authority thereunder.

( 4 ) AMONG others, the petitioners have challenged the validity of386 Section 15 of the Customs act, Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act of 1975 (Central Act No. 51 of 1975) (Tariff Act) and the Bill of Entry (Forms) Regulation of 1976 (Regulations ). Apart from these, the petitioners have claimed various other reliefs on diverse grounds. We will notice and deal with them in due course setting out any additional facts that are necessary to appreciate them.

( 5 ) WHILE issuing rule nisi in each case, this Court had made interim orders on uniform terms, however, safeguarding the interests of both sides. Both sides have complied with the interim orders made by this Court and the imported goods have been cleared in terms of the interim orders and the consequential orders made by the authority.

( 6 ) IN Writ Petition No. 21445 of 1983 the respondents have filed their detailed return and the same has been adopted by them as their return in all other cases. In their return the respondents have repudiated the challenges to the provisions noticed earlier and have justified the actions of the authorities.

( 7 ) SRIYUTHS G. K. Shevgoor and K. G. Raghavan, learned Advocates have appeared for the petitioners. When we refer to the name of any one learned counsel hereafter, we should be understood as referring to the name of the other learned counsel also.

( 8 ) SRI K. Shivashankar Bhat, learned Central Government Senior Standing Counsel has appeared for the respondents.

( 9 ) BOTH sides in their elaborate arguments extending for four days have relied on a large number of rulings in support of their respective cases and we will refer to them at the appropriate stages.

( 10 ) FIRST, the petitioners have attacked Section 15 of the Customs Act as beyond the legislative competence of the Union Parliament. Second, they have attacked that provision as violative of articles 14, 246, 265, 300a and 301 of the Constitution without, however, elaborating either of the grounds. But, at the hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, very rightly did not pursue the challenge to Section 15 of the Customs Act, which itself justifies us to reject the same.

( 11 ) AS the petitioners have not elaborated and pursued their challenge to Section 15 of the customs Act, we do not consider it necessary to set out the rules of interpretation of entries in the 7th Schedule to the Constitution in any detail, discuss and apply them to the q

Click Here to Read the rest of this document