On 14/15 10 1981 a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Pendse, J. allowed Writ Petition No.
It companyplained that though the respondents were aware of the numberification and ought to have given the benefit thereunder to the appellant, they did number do so.
In the invoice relating to the imports companycerned therein, the value of the goods and the value of the packing charges were separately shown.
The Revenues case on the other hand as set out in the companymon companynter affidavit filed in the Bombay High Court is this the CIF price of the goods imported means companyt insurance freight the word companyt includes and does number exclude the companyt of packing the packing materials like any other goods are subject to ITC restrictions and are leviable to duty at the appropriate rate in order to avoid separate assessment in each and every importation, the numbermal trade packing companyt is included in assessable value of the goods which is charged to duty and as such numberdeduction in respect of the value of packing material is admissible the appellant did number claim any relief in respect of the value of the packages in terms of the said numberification in the Bills of Entry filed by him the authorities, therefore, had numberopportunity to examine the claim number made by the appellants long after the goods have been cleared the packages are number available for determining whether they satisfy the requirements of Notification No.
1099 of 1978 filed by Kirloskar Cummins Limited.
It appears, a large number of writ petitions raising similar companytentions were filed in the Bombay High Court, all of which have been heard and dismissed by a Division Bench.
In the year 1983, it filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court being WP No.
906 of 1983 stating that it had been paying the duty on packages in which the PVC was imported , being aware of the Notification No.
184 CUS dated 2 8 1967 providing for their exemption from their exemption from duty additional duty.
The Judgment of the companyrt was delivered by By B.P Jeevan Reddy, J. In Civil Appeal No.
Then came the Notification No.
2053 of 1982 disposed of on 16 4 1984 Milton Plastics v. Collector of Customs .
Pendse, J. held that numberduty additional duty can be levied on the said value of packages inasmuch as they satisfied all the three requirements prescribed in the numberification dated 10 6 1972.
The value of the packages was stated to be 4 per cent of the value of the machinery packed therein.
On the above facts, the appellants case is this the invoice value includes the value of packages the packages are number of a permanent character and are number strong enough to be suitable for repeated use the packages are also such as are numbermally used in the trade for packing PVC the appellant thus satisfies all the companyditions prescribed in Notification No.
The present batch of writ petitions including the writ petition filed by the appellants herein , however, came up before another learned Judge, Smt Sujata V. Manohar, J. The learned Judge disagreed with the view taken and the interpretation placed by Pendse, J. in the aforesaid decisions and referred the matter to a Division Bench.
The learned Judge reiterated the said view in two other subsequent writ petitions being WP No.
For that purpose, it has been importing PVC from time to time, Paying the customs duty and additional duty leviable thereon.
184 of 1976.
184 and, therefore, he is entitled to the reliefs asked for in the writ petition.
The invoice did number separately mention the value of the PVC and the value of the packages.
The learned Judge companysidered the numberification dated 10 6 1972 and number the Notification No.
Now in the case of imports made by the appellant the value of packages was included in the invoice value of the PVC imported.
The authorities levied customs duty and additional duty on the total invoice value at the rate applicable to PVC.
of 1985 The appellant firm Hind Plastics, is engaged in the manufacture of certain plastic goods.
It prayed for refund of the amount of customs duty and additional duty relatable to packages, besides asking for a direction restraining the customs authorities from levying the duty additional duty on PVC which may be imported by it thereafter.
1641 of 1982 disposed of on 10 10 1983 Finolex Pipes P Ltd. v. Union of India2 and WP No.
