|
Wheat import � Writ petitions challenging duty
Circular No.18 dated 13th March
2000
It is directed to
inform that a number of writ petitions have been filed in the High court of
Chennai and in the High court of Kerala (Ernakulam Bench) challenging the power
of the Central Government vide Section 8A of CTA�65 to impose duty on imported
wheat vide Notification NO. 127/ 99 Customs dated 1.12.1999. the customs duty on
imported wheat was raised from �Free� to 50%.
2. In
this connection this is to convey that in the counter-affidavits that may be
filed by the Commissioners including on behalf on Union of India the following
may be mentioned: -
a. the
Notification 127/ 99 customs dated 1.12.1999 was issued under Section 8A of CTA
that gives emergency power to the Central Government to enhance the due rate.
Further in terms of Section 7 (3) the Notification 127/ 99 was duly approved by
the Parliament. (The Lok Sabha passed the resolution at the sitting held on 21st
December, 1999).
b. The
comments of JS9TRU) to Commissioner of Customs, Cochin may also be used while
preparing a suitable counter-affidavit
(Annexure
"A").
The total
number of similar cases pending in various courts, indication revenue involving
may also be intimated to the Board.
Annexure
"A"
To: Shri T.K. Jayaraman Commissioner of Customs,
Cochin
From: T.R.
Rustagi, Joint Secretary (TRU FIN (REV)) New Delhi
F.No. 354/ 56/
99�TRU (.) Kindly refer to your letter F.No. S32/ 180/ 99 AP(1) dated 28.12.99
regarding writ Petition No. 32741/ 99 filed the Hon�ble High court of Kerala
challenging the authority of central Government to impose duty on wheat through
a notification issued under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The main
issue raised by the petitioner is that since that rate of duty prescribed in
respect of wheat in the tariff was "Free" prior to 1.12.99, it was not
"leviable " to duty. According to him the Central Government could
have invoked the power to increase duty under Section 8A only if wheat was
leviable to duty in the first place. In this regard, he seeks to make a
distinction between "Free" rate and "Nil" rate and argues
that while nil rate constitutes a levy free [rate] does not. There does not
appear to be any basis for making this distinction. According to Section 12 to
the Custom Act, 1962 "Duties of customs shall be levied at such rates as
may be specified under the Customs Tariff Act, 1975" In respect of goods
falling under subheading Nos. 1001.10 and 1001.90 of the first schedule to the
Customs Tariff Act the rate of duty prescribed prior to 1.12.99 was
"Free". When read in the light of Section 12, it is evident that goods
falling under these subheadings were leviable to duty at "Free" rate.
Further, Notification No. 127/ 99 dated 1.12.99 whereby duty on wheat was
increased to 50% has already received the approval of Parliament. Admission of
the writ may be opposed accordingly. In view of the significance of the issue
raised in the writ your may request Additional Solicitor General, Chennai to
appear on behalf of the Central Government.
|