1984 (12) TMI 66 - HC - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Requirement to file a bill of entry under Section 46 of the Customs Act.
2. Classification of the vessel as 'goods' under the Customs Act.
3. Applicability of exemption from Customs duty for the vessel.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining the writ petition.
5. Allegations of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Requirement to file a bill of entry under Section 46 of the Customs Act:
The petitioners imported a vessel named "Maratha Transhipper" and were directed to file a bill of entry under Section 46 of the Customs Act. The petitioners contended that the vessel was not 'goods' under the Act and thus not subject to this requirement. However, the court found that Section 46 mandates the filing of a bill of entry for all imported goods, including vessels. The court emphasized that filing a bill of entry is an innocuous matter and does not create any obligation or liability on the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners' grievance about this requirement did not warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction of the court.

2. Classification of the vessel as 'goods' under the Customs Act:
The court examined the definitions provided in Section 2 of the Customs Act, specifically 'conveyance' and 'goods'. It concluded that a vessel is considered 'goods' under Section 2(22) of the Act. The court rejected the petitioners' argument that a vessel cannot simultaneously be a 'conveyance' and 'goods'. The court also dismissed the relevance of Chapter VI of the Customs Act, which deals with conveyances carrying imported goods, as it pertains to vessels used as conveyances and not to vessels imported as goods.

3. Applicability of exemption from Customs duty for the vessel:
The petitioners argued that the vessel was an ocean-going vessel and thus exempt from Customs duty under a 1958 notification. The court found that the issue of exemption from Customs duty is irrelevant when determining the requirement to file a bill of entry under Section 46. The court stated that the liability for Customs duty should be decided by the appropriate authority after the bill of entry is filed. The court also noted that the Assistant Collector of Customs had correctly stated that the exemption issue was not relevant at the stage of filing the bill of entry.

4. Jurisdiction of the High Court in entertaining the writ petition:
The appellants contended that the petitioners had not exhausted their statutory remedy by way of revision under the Customs Act before filing the writ petition. The court acknowledged this point but decided not to dismiss the petition on this technical ground at the appeal stage. The court emphasized that the filing of a bill of entry does not involve any civil consequences, thus the petitioners had no justifiable claim in the writ jurisdiction of the court.

5. Allegations of discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution:
The petitioners alleged that the Customs authorities had shown undue discrimination by requiring them to file a bill of entry while not imposing the same requirement on other importers of similar vessels. The court found no merit in this submission. It stated that the duty to file a bill of entry applies to all importers, and any inaction by Customs authorities in other cases does not constitute discrimination. The court held that the breach of Section 46 by others cannot be a ground for invoking the principles of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the appeal succeeds, quashing the impugned orders and discharging the rule in the petition with costs throughout. The court also refused leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, stating that the case did not involve such important questions of law requiring the Supreme Court's consideration. The operation of the order was stayed for four weeks.