2002 (1) TMI 878 - AT - Customs

Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the relevant date for the presentation of the Bill of Entry.
2. Applicability of Special Additional Duty (SAD) of Customs.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Determination of the Relevant Date for the Presentation of the Bill of Entry:

The core issue revolves around whether the Bill of Entry presented on 1-6-98 or 2-6-98 should be considered for determining the rate of duty under Section 15(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue contended that the Bill of Entry presented on 1-6-98 was incomplete due to discrepancies in the gross weight, number of packages, and exchange rate. They argued that the Bill of Entry was only complete and properly presented on 2-6-98, when these discrepancies were corrected and a serial number was assigned by the Import Clerk/Noter.

The Board's instructions (F. No. 3.1.68/Cus. VI, dated 27-8-69) state that a Bill of Entry must contain all essential particulars before it is noted by the clerk. The Revenue emphasized that the Bill of Entry should not be considered presented until it is complete in all respects and assigned a serial number.

2. Applicability of Special Additional Duty (SAD) of Customs:

The Revenue sought to impose SAD (8%) on the goods, arguing that the Bill of Entry was effectively presented on 2-6-98, after the duty became applicable. The importer contended that the Bill of Entry was initially presented on 1-6-98, and corrections made on the same day should relate back to the original date of presentation, thereby avoiding the SAD.

Separate Judgments Delivered by the Judges:

Majority Opinion (S.L. Peeran and P.G. Chacko):

The majority held that the Bill of Entry should be considered as presented on 1-6-98. They emphasized that the corrections made on 1-6-98 should relate back to the original date of presentation, as per the Supreme Court judgment in ACC For Appraisement, Group-II v. Associated Forest Products Pvt. Ltd. (2000 (115) E.L.T. 37 (S.C.)). The Assistant Commissioner had acknowledged the corrections on 1-6-98, and thus, the Bill of Entry was complete on that date. Consequently, SAD was not chargeable on the goods since the Bill of Entry was filed before the duty became applicable.

Dissenting Opinion (Jeet Ram Kait):

The dissenting member argued that the Bill of Entry should be considered as presented on 2-6-98, the date when it was assigned a serial number by the Import Clerk/Noter. He emphasized that essential particulars like the gross weight, number of packages, and exchange rate were incorrect in the initial presentation, making the Bill of Entry incomplete. According to the Board's instructions, an incomplete Bill of Entry should not be noted on the date of its first presentation. Therefore, he concluded that the relevant date for determining the rate of duty should be 2-6-98, making the goods liable for SAD.

Conclusion:

The majority opinion prevailed, confirming that the Bill of Entry was deemed presented on 1-6-98, and thus, SAD was not applicable. The Revenue's appeal was rejected, upholding the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The judgment underscores the importance of the date of initial presentation and the principle that corrections to the Bill of Entry relate back to the original date of presentation.

← Previous Next →