9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (5) TMI 269 - AT - CustomsChanges in rate of duty and tariff valuation in budget - vessel started discharge of crude palm oil on 28-2-2006 and completed on 1-3-2006 entire quantity had not been discharged into the warehouse means entire quantity not attained the status of warehoused goods on 28-2-2006 therefore, only in respect of goods which have been physically warehoused and for which Ex-bond Bill of Entry is filed, Section 15(1)(b) would be applicable - in all the other cases, it can be only Section 15(1)(c)
Issues: Interpretation of Section 15 of the Customs Act regarding rate of duty and tariff valuation for imported goods filed for warehousing.
In this case, the appellant filed an appeal against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Bangalore. The main issue revolved around the interpretation of Section 15 of the Customs Act in conjunction with Section 68 and Section 2(44). The appellant filed Into-bond Bill of Entry for the discharge of crude palm oil, but also filed Ex-bond Bills of Entry on the same day. The dispute arose regarding the rate of duty and tariff valuation applicable to the goods based on the timing of filing the Bills of Entry and the warehousing status of the goods. The appellant argued that the rate of duty and tariff valuation should be as on the date of filing the Ex-bond Bill of Entry, while the revenue authority contended that only goods physically warehoused could be considered for such valuation. The Tribunal analyzed Section 15 of the Customs Act, which specifies the rate of duty and tariff valuation for imported goods. It was noted that the date of filing the Bill of Entry is crucial for determining these aspects. Section 15(1)(a) applies to goods entered for home consumption, while Section 15(1)(b) pertains to goods cleared from a warehouse. In this case, the appellant filed a warehousing Bill of Entry, indicating an intention to warehouse the goods. Warehousing involves physically depositing goods in a warehouse, and Ex-bond Bills of Entry are filed for clearance from the warehouse. The definition of warehoused goods in Section 2(44) emphasizes goods deposited in a warehouse. Therefore, only goods physically warehoused and for which Ex-bond Bills of Entry are filed fall under Section 15(1)(b) for rate of duty and tariff valuation determination. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's argument that a quantity of goods had been warehoused by a certain time, emphasizing that the crucial factor is the quantity warehoused at the time of filing the Ex-bond Bill of Entry. The lower authority's decision to apply Section 15(1)(c) for the balance quantity not physically warehoused was upheld as legally sound. The Tribunal emphasized the statutory presumption that Ex-bond Bills of Entry imply goods have already been warehoused, which was not the case for the entire quantity in this scenario. Therefore, the appeal was rejected, and the impugned order was upheld based on a proper interpretation of the legal provisions. In conclusion, the judgment delves into the nuances of warehousing procedures, the timing of filing Bills of Entry, and the statutory definitions governing the determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation for imported goods. The decision provides clarity on the application of relevant sections of the Customs Act in scenarios involving warehousing and clearance of goods, ensuring adherence to legal provisions and statutory interpretations.
|
