India Steel House vs Union Of India And Ors.
1992 Latest Caselaw 339 Del

JUDGMENT

Gokal Chand Mital, J.

(1) In this batch of writ petitions the point involved is whether the Heading 73.15(2) of the Central Customs Tariff Act, 1975 would apply to the prime quality of stainless steel only or does it apply to both prime and defective and secondary stainless steel circles also.

(2) A group of petitions came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court and the main judgment was rendered in Super Traders Vs. Union of Inida. 1983 E.L.T. 258 Delhi, and after discussion it was held that these types of stainless steel including the so called defective and secondary stainless steel circles will also be covered by the Heading 73.15(2) of the Central Custom Tariff Act, 1975 and the customs duty would be payable accordingly which was much higher. One of such matters decided by this Court was taken to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1254-55 of 1989- M/s A. Parmananddas Vs. Union of India, decided on 4th January, 1989, upheld the decision of this Court by a short order which is reproduced herein: "IN view of the amendment made effective by Act 15 of 1982 from 1st January, 1981 which is a date after which the import in question has been made in these appelas, in our opiniojn, the High Court's judgment that the goods imported fell under Heading 73.15(2) of the Central Customs Tariff Act. 1975, must be upheld. In that view of the matter whether or not the goods in question fell within that Entry before that amendment, no opinion is necessary to be expressed in these appeals. The matters are dismissed accordinly."

(3) By Amendment Act 15 of 1982 which was published on 16th April, 1982, the Amendment was made effective from 1st January, 1982 on the basis of which the so called defective or secondary stainless steel circles were held to be covered by the Heading 73.15(2) of the Central Customs Tariff Act, 1975, at least in regard to those imports made from 1st January, 1981 in the writ petitions before us, we are of the view that the decision of A Division Bench of this Court referred to above and Supreme Court are fully applicable to this batch of writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Madras High Court in M/s. Venkateshwara Stainless Steel and Wire Industries. Vs. Union of inida, W.A. Nos. 321 to 326 of 1987, decided on 12th September, 1989.

(4) Since the judgment of this Court has been upheld by the Supreme Court we find no ground to re-consider the matter once again. It is pointed out that the review application against the decision of the Supreme Court in A. Parmanaddas (supra) is still pending for consideration. Be that as it may, so far as we are concerned we are bound by the decision of this Court as also by the Supreme Court.

(5) Learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to challenge the correctness of the decision in the matter of Super Traders (supra) and the provisions of Section 15(ii)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. We are afraid the argument does not appeal to us particularly when the decision of this Court has been upheld by the Supreme Court in A. Parmanaddas (supra).

(6) In terms of the interim orders passed by this Court the petitioner had paid only part of the duty i.e. 100 per cent or less and had furnished bank guarantee in respect of some part of the duty and not whole. While dismissing the writ petitions with no order as to costs, we order that the respondents would be entitled to recover the duty from the petitioner as is payable under the Heading 73.15(2) of (he Central Customs Tariff Act, 1975 with interest at the rate of 17.5 percent per annum from the date the duty become payable. The respondents will also be entitled to encash the bank guarantee and enforce the bond and make the recovery forthwith.