2013 (2) TMI 675 - HC - Customs

Valuation of goods - Assessee contends that Notification No. 36/2001-Cus. (N.T.) fixing tariff value for the subject goods, was not published in the Gazette on 3-8-2001 - Held that - attested copy of the Gazette of India dated 3-8-2001 containing publication of the Notification No. 36/2001-Cus. (N.T.), dated 3-8-2001 is produced before us. It is also asserted in the counter-affidavit that the said notification was published in the Gazette of India on 3-8-2001 itself. Being the official record evidencing public affairs, the Gazette is admissible and the Court is required to presume its contents as genuine u/s. 35 and 38 r/w S. 81 of the Evidence Act, 1872. No satisfactory evidence is produced by the petitioners to rebut the said presumption. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganesh Das Bhojraj (2000 (2) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), we respectfully dissent from the decision of the Karnataka High Court in Param Industries Ltd. (2002 (9) TMI 115 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE), and hold that the said notification was published on 3-8-2001. We reject the contention of the petitioners that it was not published on 3-8-2001 and was not made available for sale till 6-8-2001. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of the effective date of a customs duty notification based on publication in the Official Gazette.

Analysis:
The petitioners, engaged in the business of importing and selling RBD Palmolein oil, challenged the demand for additional Customs Duty based on a notification fixing the tariff value of the goods. They argued that the notification was not published in the Gazette on the date it claimed to be effective, and therefore, they were not liable to pay the additional duty. The respondents contended that the notification was indeed published on the specified date and was effective from that day, citing legal precedents supporting the immediate effect of such notifications upon publication.

The High Court examined the legal provisions under the Customs Act empowering the Board to fix tariff values for imported goods and the requirement for publication in the Official Gazette. It noted the absence of a specific provision necessitating the notification to be offered for sale to the public for it to be effective. The Court referred to previous judgments, including those by the Supreme Court, which emphasized the importance of publication in the Gazette as the trigger for the notification's enforceability, without the need for individual service or further public dissemination.

In light of the evidence presented, including an attested copy of the Gazette showing the publication of the disputed notification on the claimed date, the Court rejected the petitioners' argument. Relying on the legal principles established by the Supreme Court regarding the presumption of the Gazette's contents as genuine and admissible evidence of public affairs, the High Court disagreed with a conflicting decision by the Karnataka High Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the demand for additional Customs Duty based on the notification's effective date as published in the Gazette.

The judgment concluded by refusing the petitioner's request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, citing the absence of substantial questions of law of general importance due to the binding precedents governing the case. The writ petitions were dismissed with no costs awarded, affirming the respondents' position on the effective date of the customs duty notification.