High CourtsDivision Bench(1993) 06 BOM CK 0007

Bombay Alloy Steel Industries and Another vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Bombay High Court · Decided on 29 June 1993 · Citation: (1993) 48 ECR 553

HON’BLE JUDGES
M.L. Pendse, J · A.P. Shah, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 2848 of 1983

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 328 words

M.L. Pendse, J.

1.By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners are challenging legality of order dated November 25, 1983 passed by Collector of Customs (Appeals) dismissing the appeal against order dated August 3,1983 passed by Assistant Collector of Customs. The facts giving rise to the passing of this order are not in dispute.

1A. The petitioners had imported consignment and bill of entry was filed on December 9, 1983 for home consumption. The goods were allowed to be cleared and subsequently it was noticed that the duty demanded was not correct and there was a shortage of Rs. 24,543/-. The mistake occurred because the goods were wrongly classified. The Assistant Collector thereupon served Notice u/s 28 of the Customs Act for short levy of duty. After considering the reply filed by the petitioners, the demand was confirmed. The petitioners carried appeal before the Collector of Customs, but appeal ended in dismissal and these orders are under challenge.

2.

Shri Kantawala, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the Authorities committed error in holding that high chromium steel imported by the petitioners are stainless steel sheets. The learned Counsel urged that the Authorities below proceeded to classify the goods only because the steel sheets imported contain percentage of high chromium. Shri Kantawala submitted that mere fact that chromium percentage is noticed in steel sheets would not automatically make steel sheets as stainless steel sheets and, therefore, the classification order of the Authorities below was erroneous. We are not inclined to accede to the submission of the learned Counsel because the petitioners did not produce any evidence before the Authorities below to sustain the claim that the steel sheets will not be stainless steel sheets. In absence of any evidence, we are not inclined to disturb the classification order passed by the Authorities below.

3.

In the circumstances, petition fails and rule is discharged. There will be no order as to costs.