Case Details: Transasia Bio-Medicals Ltd. Versus Union of India (2025) 30 Centax 484 (Mad.)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- K.R. Shriram, CJ. & Mohammed Shaffiq, J.
- Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, for the Petitioner.
- Shri A.P.Srinivas, Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent.
Facts of the Case
The petitioner, an importer of medical equipment including ‘Hemato Analysers with standard accessories’ classifiable under CTH 9027 80, challenged the imposition of 4% additional duty under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 (CTA) on the ground that the basic rate of customs duty under the Customs Act, 1962 (CA) was ‘free’ (nil) for the relevant period 2005–06. The imported goods attracted 5% duty in 2004 and 2005, but were classified as ‘free’ in 2005–06 under CTH 9027 80.
The petitioner submitted that Notification No. 24/2005-Cus., dated 01-03-2005, issued under Section 25(1) of the CA, could not exempt goods where the statutory rate was already nil, and thus Notification No. 19/2005-Cus., dated 01-03-2005, issued under Section 3(5) of the CTA and referring to the former notification, could not impose an additional 4% duty. The petitioner further contended that both statutes being interlinked, once the base rate was nil, no additional duty could be sustained. The matter was placed before the Madras High Court.
High Court Held
The Madras High Court held that the CA and CTA are two independent enactments, and a levy under one does not preclude levy under the other unless specifically exempted. It was observed that Section 3(1) of the CTA provides for levy of duties in addition to those under Section 12 of the CA and Section 2 of the CTA. The Court noted that Notification No. 19/2005-Cus., dated 01-03-2005, issued under Section 3(5) of the CTA merely identified goods liable to the 4% ad valorem additional duty and was not dependent on Notification No. 24/2005-Cus., dated 01-03-2005, which was issued under Section 25 of the CA.
The charging section for the additional duty is Section 3 of the CTA, and it explicitly states that such duty is in addition to any other duty levied under the CTA or any other law. Consequently, even if the goods were exempt from basic customs duty under the CA, they could still be subjected to additional duty under the CTA unless there existed a specific exemption. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
List of Cases Cited
- Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2001 (128) E.L.T. 21 (S.C.) — Distinguished [Para 13]
- Century Flour Mills Ltd. v. Union of India — 2014 (301) E.L.T. 73 (Mad.) — Relied on[Para 14]
- Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. v. Commissioner — 2016 (339) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 9]
- Hyderabad Industries Ltd. V. Union Of India — 1999 (108) E.L.T. 321 (S.C.) — Followed [Para 10]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 19/2005-Cus., dated 1-3-2005 [Paras 2, 3, 4, 6, 8]
- Notification No. 24/2005-Cus., dated 1-3-2005 [Paras 3, 4, 5, 7]
