Ajit Kumar Sengupta, J. - (1.) I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have also considered the written notes of submissions handed over by them.
(2.) The main controversy in the writ application is whether Hypalon-40 is to be classified under Heading No. 39.01/06 or Heading No. 40.01/04 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The contention of the writ petitioners is that Hypalon-40 is classifiable as a kind of synthetic rubber under Heading No. 40.01/04 whereas the customs authorities have submitted that Hypalon-40 is classifiable under Heading No. 39.01 /06 as synthetic resin. The reasons given by Mr. Ghose, learned Advocate for the customs authorities for such classification are stated hereinafter.
(3.) The customs duties are levied under Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962. Prior to 2nd August, 1976 the customs duty was levied by classifying the imported goods under the item specified in the First Schedule to the Indian Tariff Act, 1934 at the rates mentioned therein. In the year 1964 the Tariff Revision Committee was set up by the Government of India which recommended for restructuring the customs tariff in India on the basis of Brussels Nomenclature now known as "Customs Co-operation Council Nomenclature." On the basis of the said recommendation Parliament passed the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The objects and reasons for enacting the charging section (Section 2) are as follows :- "The Schedule is broadly based on the Brussels Tariff Nomenclature, but the individual headings of that Nomenclature have been either merged or sub-divided to accord with the pattern of India's Import Trade Policy.";