The term 'glassware' in Item 60(9)(4) of the Tariff Act, 1934, should be interpreted broadly to include articles made of glass, including object glasses and lenses used in the manufacture of Theodolites, for the purpose of imposing countervailing duty.

S. RAMACHANDRA IYER, C. J. :- The short point for consideration in tin's appeal against the judgment of Veeraswami, J. is whether object glasses and lenses used in the manufacture of Theodolites will be liable to a countervailing duly on import under item 60(9),(4) of the Tariff Act, 1934, as comprised under the heading of 'glassware'. The appellant company amongst its other lines of business, manufactures scientific and survey instruments. They imported by air on 23-11-1961, during the licensing period April to September 1961, under an actual user's licence issued under Item 92 G-2 of the Import Trade Control Policy book, object glasses and lenses for being used as component parts of Theodolites to be manufactured by them. For the purpose of import duty these articles fall under Item 77 of the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, which runs "Instruments, apparatus and appliances other than electrical, all sorts not otherwise specified-40 per cent ad valorem if imported from the United Kingdom."

Accordingly an import duty of 40 per cent on the ad valorem value of the goods was levied by the Customs authorities on the materials imported that duty was paid by the appellant without any demur. But the authorities imposed an additional duty of 15 per rent on the ground that the articles imported would also come under Item 60(9), (4) of 5 the schedule to the Tariff Act as glassware and as such liable to countervailing excise duty inasmuch as object glasses and lenses manufactured in this country will be liable to excise duty of 15 per cent under the provisions of the Finance Act of 1961. Before referring to the relevant provisions of that enactment we may refer to Item 23A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The description of the goods dealt with by that article are these :

"Glass and Glassware - (1) sheet glass and plate glass, (2) Laboratory glass-ware, (3) glass shells, glass globes and chimneys for lamps and lanterns, (4) other glassware including tableware". We are concerned in the present case with the last of the item above mentioned. Section 13 of the Finance Act of 1961 has prescribed this duty of 15 per cent by way of excise duty on glassware manufactured in this country.

2. Item 60(9) of the Tariff Act reproduces these very items contained in the Excise Act and provides inter alia under column 4, "The excise duty for the time being leviable on like articles if produced or manufactured in India and where such duty is leviable at different rates the highest-duty;

and the duty so leviable shall be in addition to the duty which would have been levied if this entry had not been inserted".

3. It will be seen from the foregoing that the duly imposed at the time of import under the provisions aforesaid is really a protective or countervailing duty. The reason for the imposition of the duty under item 60(9) equivalent to excise duty leviable on .similar goods manufactured in this country is not far to seek, namely, that manufacturer of the name category of goods in this country ought not to suffer unfair competition from outsiders. If the former were to pay excise duty the Hitter too should be compelled to pay countervailing duty as otherwise the importer of foreign goods will be at an advantage over the manufacturer, within this country. For the imposition of this countervailing duty it is not essential that identical goods should have been actually manufactured in this country. It would be sufficient if they are likely to be manufactured and if so manufactured they become liable to excise duty.

4. The Customs department in the instant case imposed on the goods imported an additional duty of 15 per cent. The appellant paid that amount under protest as they wanted to clear the goods; but they later applied to the same authorities for refund of the 15 per cent duty as illegal collection. Failing to get relief from those authorities they applied to this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for a direction to the appropriate autho