9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Whether customs duty assessed under the prior entry system can be re-assessed after the arrival of the importing vessel or if Section 17(4) of the Customs Act bars such re-assessment.
Summary: The case involved a dispute regarding the re-assessment of customs duty on a consignment of Viscose Staple Fibre imported under Exemption Notification No. 8/79-Cus. The appellants filed a Bill of Entry in anticipation of the arrival of the vessel, and the duty was assessed at Rs. 1.32 per kg. The duty was paid, but before clearance, the duty rate increased to Rs. 2.37 per kg. The Assistant Collector demanded the differential duty, which the appellants paid under protest. The main contention was whether the concessional rate applied on the date of entry of the vessel into Indian waters or the date of payment of duty. The appellants also argued that Section 17(4) barred re-opening of assessment without any incorrect statement in the Bill of Entry. The Department argued that Section 15 of the Customs Act determines the rate of duty based on the date of entry inwards of the vessel, and the duty must be re-assessed accordingly. The appellants contended that the Department could have refrained from assessment until entry inwards or made a provisional assessment to avoid re-assessment. The Tribunal analyzed Sections 15 and 17 of the Customs Act, emphasizing that Section 15 fixes the date for determining the duty rate, while Section 17 outlines the procedural steps for assessment. The Tribunal concluded that the duty rate applicable on the date of entry inwards of the vessel was correct and upheld the re-assessment, rejecting the appeal. In the judgment, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of harmoniously interpreting various sections of the Customs Act to ensure the charging provisions are applied correctly. The Tribunal clarified that re-assessment may be necessary for various reasons, and Section 17(4) does not limit re-assessment only to incorrect statements in the Bill of Entry. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the duty rate on the date of entry inwards was correctly applied, affirming the re-assessment of duty on the imported goods.
|
