Customs and excise regulation under administrative law
Customs and Excise Regulation under Administrative Law
Overview
Customs and Excise duties are indirect taxes levied by the government on goods and services:
Customs Duty: Levied on goods imported into or exported out of India.
Excise Duty: Levied on manufacture or production of goods within the country (now largely subsumed under GST, but excise on certain goods like alcohol remains).
Administrative Regulation
Customs and excise duties are administered by government authorities under the Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs (CBIC). They exercise powers such as:
Assessment and collection of duties.
Search, seizure, and arrest in cases of evasion or smuggling.
Adjudication of disputes and penalties.
Granting refunds, exemptions, or concessions.
Imposing penalties and prosecuting offenders.
These administrative actions are subject to statutory laws like the Customs Act, 1962 and Central Excise Act, 1944 (pre-GST), and are governed by principles of natural justice and rule of law under administrative law.
Key Features of Customs and Excise Administrative Law
Quasi-judicial powers: Officers act as adjudicators in disputes.
Power to conduct searches and seizures to prevent tax evasion.
Right to appeal: Assessees can appeal against orders to Customs, Excise Appellate Tribunals or Courts.
Procedural safeguards: Principles of natural justice apply.
Binding notifications and circulars: Provide guidance on interpretation and enforcement.
Important Case Laws Related to Customs and Excise Regulation
1. Commissioner of Customs vs B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1989) 1 SCC 474
Background: The case dealt with the question of whether certain goods were liable to customs duty.
Issue: Classification of goods under Customs Tariff and interpretation of tariff headings.
Decision: Supreme Court held that classification should be done based on the commercial understanding of the goods and their essential character, not just technical or literal interpretation.
Significance: Established the principle of “commercial understanding” in tariff classification disputes.
2. Commissioner of Central Excise vs Shriram Industries (1992) 2 SCC 252
Background: The case concerned excise duty on manufactured goods and the meaning of ‘manufacture’.
Issue: Whether certain processes amounted to manufacture attracting excise duty.
Decision: Supreme Court interpreted the definition of manufacture broadly, including any process that changes the character or use of goods.
Significance: Clarified scope of excise duty and expanded taxable activities.
3. CIT vs Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1965) 1 SCR 945
Background: This case dealt with the legality of seizure of goods under excise laws.
Issue: Whether the officers had authority to seize goods without prior notice or opportunity to be heard.
Decision: Supreme Court upheld the power of seizure as a preventive measure but emphasized that later adjudication must follow due process.
Significance: Balanced administrative powers with principles of natural justice.
4. Collector of Central Excise vs Larsen & Toubro Ltd. (1994) 2 SCC 323
Background: The issue related to classification of goods for excise duty.
Issue: Determining tariff heading based on the principal element or component.
Decision: Court emphasized the “test of essential character” and the principal use of goods to decide classification.
Significance: Refined principles of tariff classification under excise law.
5. Keshav Mills Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs (1965) 1 SCR 681
Background: Dispute about the valuation of goods for customs duty.
Issue: Whether declared value of goods was acceptable for duty or if customs could assess a higher value.
Decision: Supreme Court held that customs authorities have the right to revalue goods based on market realities to prevent undervaluation.
Significance: Affirmed customs authority’s power to reassess value to ensure proper duty collection.
Summary Table:
| Case | Issue | Decision | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commissioner of Customs vs B.C. Srinivasa Setty (1989) | Tariff classification of goods | Based on commercial understanding | Set principle for tariff classification |
| Commissioner of Central Excise vs Shriram Industries (1992) | Definition of manufacture for excise | Broad interpretation of manufacture | Expanded scope of excise duty |
| CIT vs Associated Cement Companies (1965) | Seizure powers and natural justice | Seizure allowed, but due process needed | Balanced enforcement and fairness |
| Collector of Central Excise vs Larsen & Toubro (1994) | Tariff classification | Essential character test | Refined classification principles |
| Keshav Mills vs Commissioner of Customs (1965) | Valuation for customs duty | Customs can reassess value | Prevented undervaluation of goods |
Additional Points
Customs and excise officers must follow fair procedure and give the affected parties a chance to be heard before final decisions.
Administrative decisions are subject to judicial review if they are arbitrary, mala fide, or violative of natural justice.
The shift to GST has integrated many excise duties, but customs duties remain distinct and governed by customs law and administrative rules.
RELATED Blog
0 comments