9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of notifications u/s 25 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding duty exemption on imported goods.
The petitioner, a firm engaged in the import and sale of edible oils, challenged a customs duty imposition following conflicting notifications issued by the government. The first notification, dated 1st July, 1977, exempted palmoleins from customs duty, while a subsequent notification on 1st March, 1979, imposed duty exceeding 12.5%. The petitioner submitted a bill of entry on 13th March, 1979, paid the duty under protest, and later sought a refund based on the earlier notification. The Assistant Collector rejected the refund claim, leading to the petitioner's appeal to quash the order and seek a refund. The main contention revolved around the retrospective effect of the March 1979 notification and the scope of the government's power to grant exemptions u/s 25 of the Customs Act. The petitioner argued that import should be considered when the ship arrives in Indian waters, while the government contended that import occurs upon bill presentation. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the validity of the duty levy under the March 1979 notification, emphasizing that the exemption was limited to 87.5%. The court upheld the government's position, stating that import, as defined in the Customs Act, refers to bringing goods into India from outside, which occurs upon bill presentation. The court cited Section 15 of the Act, which specifies the relevant date for duty valuation as the bill presentation date. Regarding the duty exemption notification, the court clarified that it did not levy duty but exempted up to 87.5%, implying that any amount exceeding this threshold would be subject to duty. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, ruling in favor of the government and denying the petitioner's refund claim.
|
