G. Sankaran, Senior Vice President

1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. B. Cus. 354/87, dated 24-8-1987 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals) Madras.

2. The issue for determination in this appeal is whether the consignment of designs and drawings imported by the appellants under Bill of Entry 7160/87, dated 13-4-1987 was liable to be charged to auxiliary duty of customs at 40% ad valorem in terms of Customs Notification No. 111/87, dated 1-3-1987, as held by the lower authorities or was exempt from the said duty in terms of Customs Notification 112/87, dated 1-3-1987.

3. There is no dispute as regards the classification under Heading 4906.00 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 for the purpose of levy of basic duty of customs nor as regards the levy of additional duty of customs.

4. We have heard Shri V. Sridharan, learned counsel, for the appellants and Shri V. Chandrasekaran, SDR, for the respondent-Collector.

5. Auxiliary duty of customs was leviable, under Section 95 of the Finance Bill of 1987, which subsequently was enacted into the Finance Act, on goods mentioned in the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act at the rate of 50% of the value of the goods as determined in accordance with the provisions of Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Finance Bill provided that the auxiliary duty of customs shall be in addition to any duties of customs chargeable on such goods under the Customs Act, or any other law, for the time being in force. The Memo of Appeal before us has strenuously expatiated on the submission that the import of sub-section (3) is that auxiliary duty would be leviable only if some duty of customs was chargeable on the goods in question under the Customs Act or any other law (here, the Customs Tariff Act) for the time being in force. The goods were admittedly charged to basic customs duty under Heading 49.06, which reads as follows :-

The submission is that since the goods were not leviable to any duty of customs under the Customs Tariff Act, sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Finance Bill precluded the levy of any auxiliary duty on the said goods. This submission has only to be stated to be rejected. Perhaps, that was why the Learned Counsel for the appellants did not urge this ground before us. The expression "any duties of customs" occurring in sub-section (3) of Section 95 of the Finance Bill should, in our view, be construed as, and meaning, duties of customs, if any. The sub-section cannot be read in the manner urged by the appellants. It is clear that the auxiliary duty of customs is chargeable in addition to any duties of customs chargeable, inter alia, under the Customs Tariff Act. This would not mean that if no duty of customs is chargeable under any other law, the auxiliary duty leviable under sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Finance Bill would also not be, for that reason, chargeable. The measure of the charge of auxiliary duty is, as noted earlier, 50% of the value of the goods. This measure is contained in sub-section (1). When this is so, subsection (3) cannot be called in aid of the view (which we hold as untenable) that if no duty of customs is chargeable under any other law, auxiliary duty is not chargeable in terms of sub-section (1) of Section 95 of the Finance Bill.

6. The debate in the hearing centred round the appropriate interpretation of Notification 112/87, dated 1-3-1987. This notification exempted the goods specified in the Table annexed thereto from the whole of the auxiliary duty of customs leviable thereon. The Table read as follows :-

The Ld. Counsel would contend that the word "plans" used in the notification should be construed to mean and include "plans and drawings" as set out in Heading 49.06 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. On the other hand, the Learned D.R. would contend that the word "plans" should be read as it is and cannot be considered to mean and include "plans and dr