2020 (9) TMI 903 - SC - Customs

AS PER JUSTICE DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD Enhancement of Customs Duty - post-Pulwama Attack - Time and date from which enhanced duty comes into effect - issuance of notification under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 introducing a tariff entry by which all goods originating in or exported from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan were subjected to an enhanced customs duty of 200% - the contention of the Union government before the High Court was that under Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 the relevant date for determining the rate of duty is the date of the presentation of the bill of entry - submission was that the amended rate of duty under notification 5/2019 came into force on 16 February 2019; hence, the importers were liable to pay duty on the basis of the amended rate. The submission was that the customs authorities were entitled to re-assess the bills of entry under Section 17(4). HELD THAT - The purpose of the notification being to discourage the import of goods from Pakistan, it has prospective effect the object and purpose is not to penalize Indian importers who had completed their imports, presented bills of entry for home consumption and had completed self-assessment in terms of the provisions of the Customs Act and the Regulations, prior to the issuance of the notification. Determination of the rate under Section 15 of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT - Section 15(1)(a) uses two expressions (i) the rate and valuation in force ; and (ii) on the date of the presentation of the bill of entry for home consumption under Section 46. The provisions of Section 15(1)(a) have to be read in conjunction with the provisions of Section 46 which are referred to in the former provision. Section 46 has incorporated a regime which encompasses the submission of the bill of entry for home consumption or warehousing in an electronic format, on the customs automated system in the manner which is prescribed. The Regulations of 2018 stipulate the manner in which the bill of entry has to be presented. The deeming fiction in Regulation 4(2) specifies when presentation of the bill of entry and selfassessment are complete. The rate of duty stands crystallized under Section 15(1)(a) once the deeming fiction under Regulation 4(2) comes into existence. The regulations have to be read together with the statutory provisions contained in Section 15(1)(a) and Section 46, while determining the rate of duty. Precedent - HELD THAT - In Bharat Surfactants (Private) Limited vs. Union of India 1989 (5) TMI 66 - SUPREME COURT , customs duty was imposed on the import of edible oil by the petitioners at the rate of 150 per cent on the basis that the import was made on the date of the inward entry, which was 31 July 1981. The vessel arrived and registered in the Port of Bombay on 11 July 1981 but since a berth was not available, the cargo could not be unloaded. The vessel left Bombay and proceeded to Karachi and returned towards the end of July 1981. The rate of customs duty prevailing on 11 July 1981 was 12.5 per cent and the contention of the importer was that but for the fact that the vessel was unable to secure a berth, it would have delivered the cargo - The Constitution Bench held that the date of entry inwards of the vessel in the Customs register was mentioned as 31 July 1981 and the rate of import duty and tariff valuation would be that which was in force on that day. The presentation of a bill of entry for home consumption under Section 46 is hence the definitive event with reference to which the customs duty payable for import is determined. The duty in force on the day when the bill of entry for home consumption is presented is the duty which is applicable under Section 15(1)(a) - It is in view of this principle that the entry of the vessel into territorial waters, before the presentation of the bill of entry, has been held not to fix the rate of duty where the rate of duty has undergone a change. Interpreting day and date - HELD THAT - The submission of the ASG, simply put, is that because notification 5/2019 was issued on 16 February 2019, the court must regardless of the time at which it was uploaded on the e-Gazette treat it as being in existence with effect from midnight or 0000 hours on 16 February 2019. The consequence of this interpretation would be to do violence to the language of Section 8A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act, and to disregard the meaning, intent and purpose underlying the adoption of provisions in the Customs Act in regard to the electronic filing of the bill of entry and the completion of self-assessment. Notification under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act - HELD THAT - A notification which is issued in terms of the provisions of Sub-section (1) of Section 8A is akin to the exercise of a delegated legislative power. The Central government is empowered to issue a notification enhancing the rate of duty where it is satisfied that immediate action is necessary to increase the rate of customs duty on an article specified in the First schedule. The effect of the notification is to amend the First schedule to the Customs Tariff Act in respect of the import duty leviable on an article under Section 12 of the Customs Act. In issuing a notification under Sub-section (1) of Section 8A, the Central government exercises power as a delegate of the legislature. The issue now to be considered is whether the notification that was issued by the Central government under Section 8A(1) at 20 46 58 hours on 16 February 2019 took effect commencing from 0000 hours on that day. The rate of customs duty is determined on the date on which the bill of entry for home consumption is presented (Section 15). The presentation of the bill of entry has to be made electronically (Section 46 read with the 2018 Regulations). The presentation is required to be made on the customs automated system. The provisions in the Customs Act for the electronic presentation of the bill of entry for home consumption and for self-assessment have to be read in the context of Section 13 of the Information Technology Act which recognizes the dispatch of an electronic record and the time of receipt of an electronic record - The presentation of the bill of entry under Section 46 is made electronically and is captured with time stamps in terms of the requirements of the Information Technology Act read with Rule 5(1) of the Information Technology (Electronic Service Delivery) Rules 2011. Notification 5/2019 was uploaded in the e-gazette at a specific time and date and cannot apply to bills of entry which were presented on the customs automated EDI system prior to it, attracting the legal fiction set out in Regulation 4(2) of the 2018 Regulations. Retrospectivity - HELD THAT - For the purpose of the present decision the point which needs emphasis is that in empowering the Central Government to exercise power under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act, Parliament has not either expressly or by necessary implication indicated that a notification once issued will have force and effect anterior in time. The provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 7 of the Customs Tariff Act bring to bear legislative oversight and supervision over the power which is entrusted to the Central Government under Section 8A. That however does not lead to the inference that a notification under Section 8A has retrospective effect. Plainly, a notification enhancing the rate of duty under Section 8A has prospective effect. In the present case the twin conditions of Section 15 stood determined prior to the issuance of Notification 5/2019 on 16 February 2019 at 20 46 58 hours. The rate of duty was determined by the presentation of the bills of entry for home consumption in the electronic form under Section 46. Self-assessment was on the basis of rate of duty which was in force on the date and at the time of presentation of the bills of entry for home consumption. This could not have been altered in the purported exercise of the power of re-assessment under Section 17 or at the time of the clearance of the goods for home consumption under Section 47. The rate of duty which was applicable was crystallized at the time and on the date of the presentation of the bills of entry in terms of the provisions of Section 15 read with Regulation 4(2) of the Regulations of 2018. The power of reassessment under Section 17(4) could not have been exercised since this is not a case where there was an incorrect self-assessment of duty. The duty was correctly assessed at the time of self-assessment in terms of the duty which was in force on that date and at the time. The subsequent publication of the notification bearing 5/2019 did not furnish a valid basis for re-assessment. Appeal dismissed. AS PER K.M. JOSEPH, J. Does a notification under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 increasing the import duty published late in the evening of 16th Feb 2019, date back to the midnight of the previous day? Does a day include its fractions? - HELD THAT - The Customs Act is a consolidating Act. It is intended, inter alia, to deal with the menace of smuggling. It contains various sanctions. It also provides for the levy of Customs duty on import and export. It is a law which provides revenue to the State. It is also an important tool in the hands of the nation to arrange its economic affairs to make it best suited to the welfare of the people otherwise. Indisputably, the charging Section is Section 12. The taxable event is import into or export of goods from India. Ordinarily, the Tariff Act provides the rates at which duty is imposed on imports and exports. There is no dispute that India and Pakistan being S.A.A.R.C. Countries they were parties to an agreement under which the trade between the countries was subjected only to duty on concessional rates. It is while so, following the unfortunate incident of Pulwama that the Government of India in exercise of its powers under Section 8A of the Tariff Act decided to increase the rate of import duty on all goods in the manner done. The Notification was issued on 16.02.2019. It was published at about 20 46 58 hrs. In the meantime, during the course of the day, the writ petitioners before us who imported goods had filed Bills of Entry electronically. The goods were present in the Customs Station. The Tariff Act and whether the notification is a form of Delegated Legislation - HELD THAT - A Notification issued under Section 8A, increasing the import duty, is a species of delegated legislation. It must be remembered that Article 265 of the Constitution of India declares that no tax shall be levied except by the authority of Law. An increase in the rate of duty cannot obviously be affected by an Executive Order. That is not to say that when the Executive is empowered to increase the rate of duty by way of delegated legislation, it would not fulfill the requirement of Article 265 and there can be no hesitation in holding that it is law within the meaning of Article 13 of the Constitution of India and it is a species of delegated legislation. The Scheme of the Customs Act Qua Rate of Duty on imports and assessment to duty - HELD THAT - There is no dispute that the imported goods were very much in the Customs Station and the Bills of Entry were presented under Section 46(1) on 16.2.2019. It is clear that the rate of duty, for the purpose of the cases before the Court, is to be determined with reference to the presentation of the Bills of Entry. The law does not take into consideration even the time of payment of the duty which is self-assessed by the importer. This is noted for the reason that the importer, who presents a Bill of Entry under Section 46 and who carries out self-assessment, is duty-bound to pay such duty on the very same date. The consequence of failure is only the liability to pay interest under Section 47 besides disabling him from clearing the goods. It does not postpone the point of time at which the rate of duty is to be determined. As far as the Notification issued under Section 8A of the Tariff Act is concerned, the Notification would come into force on the date on which it is published in the Gazette. The question, however, which arises in this case is, as far as this Court is concerned, res integra, viz., whether having regard to the time at which it was published, whether Notification would come into force on 16.02.2019, by including the whole of the day or will it operate from the time of its publication, or whether the Notification is to be enforced only after excluding 16.02.2019 - The question would pointedly arise whether it was to have effect for the whole of the day, viz., 16.02.2019, which means, since the day 16.02.2019 was born, immediately after the midnight on 15.02.2019, does a day mean the first moment after the midnight? If that were the effect, what would be its impact on the Bills of Entry which were electronically presented under Section 46(1) of the Customs Act read with Rule 4(2) of the 2018 Regulations. It is here that it becomes necessary to notice the provisions of Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Section 9 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 - HELD THAT - Section 9 of the General Clauses Act enunciates the principle, that for, excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of time, it suffices to use the word from . It also provides, likewise, for the devise of using the word to , for the purpose of including the last in the series of days or other period of time. It is clear from Section 9 that it contemplates a period, or a series of days which is marked by both terminus aquo and terminus ad quem. Section 9 is expressly intended to apply to a Central Act or Regulation. Cases under Contracts of Insurance - HELD THAT - It is clear that the situation which is presented before us, is not covered by the principle which is embedded in Section 9 of General Clauses Act, 1897. In other words, having regard to the terms of the Notification, which is a form of delegated legislation, by which the Central Government has increased the rate of import duties of goods imported from Pakistan, though the notification is gazetted on 16.02.2018 at 20 46 58 hrs., there is no period for which it is to last as already noticed, and in that sense, it can be argued that there would be no occasion for exclusion of the date on which it was issued. Whether Section 5(3) of the General Clauses Act applies to the Notification - HELD THAT - It is quite clear that the notification which is issued is one which is issued under Section 8A of the Tariff Act. The notification is not one which is made by Central Legislature, namely, the Parliament. It therefore is not a Central Law as defined in the Act. We have also noticed the definition of the word Regulation . The notification is not a regulation as defined in General Clauses Act. There is no merit in the contention of the Union of India that by virtue of Section of 5(3) of the General Clauses Act, the notification must be treated as effective from the point of time immediately after mid night on 15/16 February, 2019. Existence of possible views - HELD THAT - Having regard to the Scheme, which, in the case of import duty, consists of filing of Bill of Entry for home consumption, self-assessment and payment of duty on the basis of the same and the rate being clearly fixed with reference to the particular point of time when the Bill of Entry is presented and there is a deemed presentation and even a deemed assessment, which is otherwise in order, and bearing in mind the principle that Section 8A does not provide power for increase of rate of duty with retrospective effect, the Notification must be treated as having coming into force not before its publication which is at 20 46 58 hrs. on 16.02.2019. This would necessarily mean that the Notification cannot be used to alter the rate of duty on the basis of which, in fact, there was presentation of Bill of Entry several hours ago, the self-assessment was done and what is more, the self-assessment was completed under Regulation 4(2) of the 2018 Regulations. There cannot be reassessment. The interpretation based on time of publication is in harmony with a view that accords respect for vested rights. Two inconsistent rates at the same point of time - HELD THAT - There is no merit in the submission of the appellants in this regard. Once it is found that the notification upon publication would take effect from the time of its publication then in regard to the bills of entries which stand presented within the meaning of Section 46 of the Customs Act read with 4(2) of the 2018 Regulations, earlier to such publication, the rate of duty in regard to the same would be only the rate of duty which prevailed at the time of the deemed presentation under Regulation 4(2) of the 2018 Regulations. Effect of the Word ''Otherwise'' in section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT - The expression otherwise in Section 17(4), will not come to the rescue of the appellants, in the facts of the instant case. While the word otherwise may be capable of taking care of situations which are not covered by the preceding expressions, viz., verification, examination, attesting of the goods, it cannot mean that it will empower the Officer to alter the rate of duty which is prevalent at the time of the self-assessment following the due presentation of the Bill of Entry. If it is otherwise, it will be open to the Department to reopen cases of concluded assessments by virtue of the deemed completion of assessment under Regulation 4(2) without any legal justification. That would be plainly impermissible being illegal. This is not a case where the assessment is assailed on any other ground except by insisting on a rate of duty which is in applicable. By its very nature, delegated legislation is legislative in character but if it is to be a Central Act within the meaning of Section 5 of General Clauses Act, it must be made by the legislature. Delegated legislation which is called administrative legislation in England, is exercise of legislative power by the executive. It is to be further noticed the fact that the notification issued under Section 8A is in the exercise of its legislative power or that it may have to be read in the same manner as if it is a part of the Act, will not detract the Court from ascertaining as to who is the author of the exercise of the legislative power, namely, whether it is an exercise of power by the legislature or by its delegate. Upon answer to the question, namely, that the author of the legislative effort is the executive, the question would necessarily arise as to whether there is publication. In the scheme of the Customs Act, the Tariff Act and the 2018 Regulations, the time at which the notification under Section 8A is published would indeed have relevance as already found. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Aftermath of Pulwama
2. Backdrop
3. Petitions before the High Court
4. Judgment of the High Court
5. Submissions in the appeals
6. Determination of the rate under Section 15 of the Customs Act 1962
7. Precedent
8. Interpreting 'day' and 'date'
9. Notification under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act
10. General Clauses Act
11. Information Technology Act, 2000
12. Effect of notifications issued in e-gazettes
13. Retrospectivity
14. Summation

Detailed Analysis:

1. Aftermath of Pulwama:
A terrorist attack in Pulwama on 14 February 2019 led the Union Government to issue a notification on 16 February 2019 under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act 1975, enhancing customs duty to 200% on all goods originating from Pakistan. The notification was uploaded at 20:46:58 hours. Customs authorities enforced the enhanced rate on importers who had already presented bills of entry before the notification's upload, leading to legal challenges.

2. Backdrop:
The first respondent, a partnership firm, imported cement from Pakistan. The goods arrived at the Land Customs Station, and the bill of entry was filed and self-assessed before the notification was issued. The customs authorities reassessed the duty after the notification, leading to a dispute.

3. Petitions before the High Court:
Importers challenged the reassessment, arguing that the enhanced duty could not apply retrospectively to goods for which bills of entry were filed before the notification. They contended that the notification should only apply prospectively from the time of its publication.

4. Judgment of the High Court:
The High Court ruled in favor of the importers, stating that the enhanced duty could not apply to goods for which bills of entry were filed before the notification's publication. The court held that the relevant date for duty determination is the date of bill of entry presentation, and the notification's late issuance meant it applied from the next day.

5. Submissions in the appeals:
The Union of India argued that the notification should apply from the date of its issuance, covering the entire day. The importers contended that the notification could not apply retrospectively and should only affect bills of entry filed after its publication time.

6. Determination of the rate under Section 15 of the Customs Act 1962:
Section 15 specifies that the rate of duty is determined by the date of bill of entry presentation. The court emphasized that the self-assessment and duty payment must align with the rate in force at that time. The notification's late issuance meant it could not retroactively alter the duty rate for already filed bills of entry.

7. Precedent:
Previous cases, such as Bharat Surfactants and Priyanka Overseas, established that the date of bill of entry presentation determines the duty rate. The court reaffirmed that the notification's effect could not precede its publication.

8. Interpreting 'day' and 'date':
The court examined various interpretations of 'day' and 'date' in legal contexts. It concluded that the notification's effect starts from its publication time, not retroactively from the beginning of the day.

9. Notification under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act:
The notification issued under Section 8A is a legislative act amending the First Schedule. However, it cannot have retrospective effect unless explicitly stated. The court held that the notification's effect begins from its publication time.

10. General Clauses Act:
Section 5(3) of the General Clauses Act, which states that a Central Act or Regulation comes into operation immediately after the preceding day, does not apply to notifications under Section 8A. The notification is not a 'Central Act' or 'Regulation' as defined in the General Clauses Act.

11. Information Technology Act, 2000:
The Information Technology Act supports the use of electronic records and timestamps. The court noted that the notification's publication time is crucial in determining its effect, aligning with the principles of electronic governance.

12. Effect of notifications issued in e-gazettes:
The shift to electronic gazettes means the precise publication time is significant. The court held that the notification's effect starts from its e-gazette publication time, not retroactively.

13. Retrospectivity:
Section 8A does not authorize retrospective application of notifications. The court emphasized that delegated legislation cannot have retrospective effect unless explicitly stated.

14. Summation:
The court concluded that the notification's effect starts from its publication time. The importers' bills of entry, filed before the notification's publication, should be assessed at the pre-notification duty rate. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's judgment.